Wine/Cedega and fedora 3

[Richard June]

On Wednesday 08 December 2004 12:39, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 11:57 -0500, Richard June wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > No.  I don't want to do it because I lose any security updates from any
> > > vendor.  I would become the package vendor, and as a result, I'd become
> > > responsible for packaging security updates.  My point was that there
> > > are people who package newer versions of OpenSSH *and* provide security
> > > updates, but I haven't been able to use any of those packages on RHEL
> > > 2.1.
> >
> > Uhm, updating OpenSSH doesn't mean you lose *all* updates from *any*
> > vendor.
>
> Sorry, I meant to say that I lose any updates available from any of the
> OpenSSH vendors, of which there are several I could choose from.
Uhm, if the vendor doesn't offer what you want, why don't you look to a 
different vendor? I know there are vendors who would be glad to do this for 
you.

> > > It's goofy.  It's a waste of effort.  Someone *already* packages new
> > > versions of OpenSSH, why should someone else have to *repackage* the
> > > exact same binary just to get a different set of RPM headers?  How does
> > > that make sense?
> >
> > It's not really *goofy*  RHEL 2.1 is not the same as RHEL 3.0, you don't
> > expect software built against Windows XP to flawlessly work with windows 
> > 98.
>
> Yes, actually, I do.  And I'm rarely disappointed.  I really can't
> remember the last major conflict I've seen with a Windows app that
> wasn't fixable with minor configuration tweaks... we have a couple
> proprietary apps here for tax management that aren't even developed
> anymore, were originally installed on Win98 machines, and which still
> run fine after upgrading to WinXP and then SP2.
[BZZT] Stop right there. I didn't say anything about expecting RHEL 2.1 
software to work on RHEL 3.0. Backwards compatibility is a valid expectation. 
and I have a handfull of donated games at my library that don't work at *all* 
on Windows XP, and the vendors refuse to fix them. Leaving me with a bunch of 
nice coasters. If they were Open Source, at least I could attempt to fix 
them. 

> Most commercial games are developed on 2000 or XP and yet still support
> 98.  Windows does not generally break compatibility and does not
> generally have magic compilations environments where the exact same
> source can end up with wildly different binary requirements and
> interfaces depending on where and when it was compiled.  I don't expect
> Linux to be at that level of interface stability at this moment, but I
> do expect to at least be slowly moving towards it, eventually.
>
> Which is what this whole thread is about.  Things that can be improved
> that have absolutely no negative impact on how Linux works now for any
> users while potentially improving things for other users.  Better
> packaging isn't going to hurt anyone, but it will help.  I haven't yet
> seen so much as a single argument against my original suggestion - not
> one.
Better packaging won't hurt anyone. but mostly I've not seen you argue for 
anything specificly, just better packaging in general, and includeing all 
deps in the RPM, which is *not* better packaging. (as in another post) if a 
package (Xine) requires libcurl.so.2, and the OS supplies libcurl.so.3, there 
are two valid answers, rebuild the package for the OS(which is what they did) 
or have the OS provide compatibility RPMs(which they do for some libraries). 
Something like curl-libs2 would have been perfectly valid, and pretty simple 
to do. Curl should be broken up into util and the libs anyway. More depends 
on libcurl than the curl utility.

[snip]
> > it anyway. But if my tax money does go to you doing work, then I have a
> > right to expect to benefit from it. So you need to post and share all the
> > work you have done.
>
> Despite common belief, computers do a lot of work besides just generate
> software.  ~_^  My work benefits our residents.  Some of it directly,
> some indirectly by improving productivity in our offices.  We also do
> release any patches we write back upstream - most of the GNOME and
> Debian stuff I've done, for example.  Definitely one of the advantages
> of working here, even with the crappy pay.  ;-)
Yes, your work benefits your residents. but if you get *my* tax money, then I 
have a right to expect a benefit as well as I am paying you. If it's a local 
office funded only by local money, then you owe nothing to anybody but your 
residents. As I mentioned. I do work for a library, as such we are acutely 
aware of our responsibility to the public. We spend as little as possible, 
and make everything we can transparent. Why? because that's the way it should 
be.

-- 
Public Key available Here:
http://www.bravegnuworld.com/~rjune/pubkey.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20041208/0dc0841c/attachment.sig>