Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote: >>>> The audacious package is willing to wait that long >>>> >> :) >> >>> Nope, because I've built it *for myself*, >>> i.e. in my repo. >>> >> And was your patch rejected from the places you are >> complaining about? >> > > There. Is. No. Question. About. Any. Patch. > > When you build audacious from SPEC + tarball, it spits out > audacious + audacious_plugins, both as RPMs and as SRPMs > (actually, it spits around 15 plugins RPMs). > > RPMforge misses the plugins, that's all. Probably just > triggering a rebuild would fix it all. > > Instead of talking for ages about patches, what builds and > what doesn't, and why "better services" would need pay etc. > maybe someone (Dag?) could have triggered the rebuild of > audacious for 100 times in the meantime. > > Truly yours, > R-C > Looking at this from yet another angle, I believe that YOU are the only person on this list who has expressed an interest in "audacious" (whatever it is & does) for CentOS during these several days of rant. By some weird coincidence, you purport to have a working version. Bully for you! You allegedly have what you want. Most list members here seem to have what they want. I absolutely, definitely, positively, most assuredly have what I want and am free of the crap that I don't want, which would include "audacious". **And any half-baked, half-tested L&G package.** With so much contentment floating around, it surely makes you look like a 33rd Degree Horse's Ass to continue ranting about the damn thing, in the process, greatly diminishing any stature that has accumulated here deriving from your technical achievements.