[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Confusion with openal-soft

Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 16:29 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> On 08/17/2009 03:54 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 15:24 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> >> On 08/17/2009 03:22 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other
> >>> branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix
> >>> everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft.
> >>
> >> The rebuild is *unnecessary*. 
> > 
> > It's on the maintainers (but not on you) to decide whether the rebuild
> > is unnecessary or not. 
> The maintainer of openal-soft has already admitted that the obsolete was
> incorrect and fixed it in Fedora and Fedora 10 and informed me about it
> offlist.  

Thomas is a first timer, who joined Fedora recently. Please don't judge
him by your standards and please don't expect him to follow procedures
that are not even outlined in the wiki.

> I am a maintainer of a package (tremulous) affected by the
> obsolete and I am not supposed to say that it is unnecessary to rebuild?

You can only speak for yourself and your package, but not for other
maintainers or packages. 

> That doesn't make any sense to me. What exactly are you fighting about
> now? The problem is already solved.

The problem is solved, but your incorrect statement about maintainers
not being able to fix their packages was still not corrected on the
list. I just wanted to correct that. I'm not fighting, I'm protecting a
fellow friend of mine against unjustified accusations.

> Rahul


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]