My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing dependency.
Which still == broken repo.
You were referring the whole time to SRPMs that do not build. But you never give me an example of one.
On the contrary, I mentioned Comix. But again, I never try the SRPM, but the SPEC+tarball. Which don't build.
When they *did* build, it was maybe 2007. Now it's 2009 and EL5.3 and... it doesn't build :-(
Care to give an example ? Then I can point you to the buildlog and you might be able to find the cause of your problem by comparing ?
Comix, for God's sake.
The audacious package is willing to wait that long :)
Nope, because I've built it *for myself*, i.e. in my repo.
See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit mass suicide under my rule :-)
Maybe the problem is indeed you, and not the repository. You expect too much from people who volunteer their own time. As I said now multiple times, unless you are not yourself committed to help, why expect someone else to do it ?
Because you either do something properly, or don't do it at all.
Maybe RPMforge should ask for money for those people who expect more than we offer. But I seriously doubt you would pay for it. So what we do is best effort, much like any other repository really.
Maybe Ubuntu should ask for money from those people who expect more than they offer. But would this improve Ubuntu's quality? I very much doubt it.
- audacious has a missing dependency (audacious-plugins) - comix SRPM does not rebuild
That's 2 packages, I think we do quite well if that is it :)
But this is only because I am not crazy enough to try 7,600 packages!
Cheers, R-C
__________________________________________________________________ Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/
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?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing dependency.
Which still == broken repo.
Sure, but when you started that thread you didn't mention your problem with the comix package. I was still confused why you would talk about SRPMs that do not build when audacious was not having this problem.
You were referring the whole time to SRPMs that do not build. But you never give me an example of one.
On the contrary, I mentioned Comix. But again, I never try the SRPM, but the SPEC+tarball. Which don't build.
Buildlogs are available from:
http://packages.sw.be/comix/_buildlogs/
I hope you come back and tell me what was your problem.
See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit mass suicide under my rule :-)
Maybe the problem is indeed you, and not the repository. You expect too much from people who volunteer their own time. As I said now multiple times, unless you are not yourself committed to help, why expect someone else to do it ?
Because you either do something properly, or don't do it at all.
That's not how Open Source works. I do something "properly" so that it works well for me. And I provide it hoping that people that have some other use (or expectations) can help me as well.
You have a different expectation. Either you can help the project, or you use it as-is, or you don't use it.
For me everyone of those is fine. You choose door 2 and I accept.
Maybe RPMforge should ask for money for those people who expect more than we offer. But I seriously doubt you would pay for it. So what we do is best effort, much like any other repository really.
Maybe Ubuntu should ask for money from those people who expect more than they offer. But would this improve Ubuntu's quality? I very much doubt it.
That's not the point. If you have problem X with Ubuntu, your only guarantee to see it fixed is by paying Canonical.
In any other case you can report it or fix it yourself. None of these options guarantee that it will be fixed in Ubuntu. But fixing it yourself has the highest probability.
- audacious has a missing dependency (audacious-plugins) - comix SRPM does not rebuild
That's 2 packages, I think we do quite well if that is it :)
But this is only because I am not crazy enough to try 7,600 packages!
Well, you said it was silly to have 8000 packages, while we should only provide 400 that worked very well.
I say that you only proved to me that 2 are not working well. I am unwilling to drop 7600 packages because you report 2 that are broken.
You see the difference :)
Of course if you want to make the case that it is better to focus on quality it is better to day that 7600 have problems, but you are actually lying because you only know about 2 broken packages.
Besides we don't have 8000 unique packages, more like 5000 I think. But that is beside the point.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
- audacious has a missing dependency (audacious-plugins) - comix SRPM does not rebuild
That's 2 packages, I think we do quite well if that is it :)
But this is only because I am not crazy enough to try 7,600 packages!
Well, you said it was silly to have 8000 packages, while we should only provide 400 that worked very well.
I say that you only proved to me that 2 are not working well. I am unwilling to drop 7600 packages because you report 2 that are broken.
You see the difference :)
Of course if you want to make the case that it is better to focus on quality it is better to day that 7600 have problems, but you are actually lying because you only know about 2 broken packages.
Besides we don't have 8000 unique packages, more like 5000 I think. But that is beside the point.
Now that I read this again, you only proved that 1 is broken, the other simply doesn't build for you. I have the proof it build for me :)
Maybe the BuildRequires are incorrect, because I work with static buildroots, not dynamic ones. And as a consequence my BuildRequires could be insufficient. (Doubtful because it was made by Dries)
Maybe the BuildRequires doesn't say exactly what version it needs. Because doing that would mean you have to go and see what the lowest version is with which is works. Which is time-consuming. (We do build from the same SPEC file for RHEL2, RH7, RH9, RHEL3, RHEL4 and RHEL5)
But that doesn't mean it is broken. It is certainly sub-optimal, and if you report such cases we do fix them.
Imagine that we would do exactly as you say, even then Radu-Christian² may state on this list with a lot of fanfare that certain packages we ship may not function properly because our process does not include 100% functional testing and we should dedicate our time to functionally test an RPM before shipping it. And drop any packages we don't do this for.
So this whole situation is not black and white. In fact if we would have unlimited time, unlimited money or unlimited contributors I would consider your suggestions seriously. But right now, any effort would be hurting some other effort and I would rather have X new packages then spending the same time to remove Y other packages.
Because I think my time would simply be worth more spending on something else. You obviously do think this time would be worth spending, and have been told what is needed to get it fixed :) I don't want to be the person that denies improving what is suboptimal though.
So my offer for commit access still stands, in case you'd reconsider.
Kind regards,
-
Dag Wieers -
Les Mikesell -
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU