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

Re: 182 pending F11 stable updates. WTF?

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 08:59:17AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 16:45 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Yes, for gcc, the kernel, glibc and other major components I'd agree.
> > 
> > For new packages, it's surely better to have a new crap package than
> > no package at all.  After all, a new crap package *might* work for
> > someone, but a missing package definitely won't.
> > 
> > For packages that not many people use, and the sort of packages I'm
> > doing (which are for developers who really should know what's what), a
> > 6-month cycle of organized around delivery of a circular piece of
> > plastic is fairly irrelevant.
> I agree to an extent.  However no matter how fringe the package, an
> improper requires or inadvertent provides can wreak havoc.  I'd rather
> not see those go directly into the pending release.

Yes, this is a problem, a rogue package that has 'Provides: glibc',
but I tend to think this is a problem with RPM or Fedora itself, which
should (somehow!) prevent that.


Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows
programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW http://www.annexia.org/fedora_mingw

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