What was the problem with audacious again ?
# yum install audacious ... Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package audacious.i386 0:1.3.2-5.el5.rf set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 for package: audacious ... --> Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge) ... Error: Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge)
We publish buildlogs. There is no reason to find it out yourself. I also do not build from the SRPM, I build from the SPEC file directly, so if an SRPM is published, it is because it build fine.
I also build from the SPEC + tarball. I took them from RF and... ...they don't build!
When they *did* build, it was maybe 2007. Now it's 2009 and EL5.3 and... it doesn't build :-(
Oh, I agree completely. So when are you going to help us?
When I'll have a better brain able of a better time management for my life :-(
If a SRPMS builds under CentOS 5.0 and it doesn't under 5.3,then this package is broekn.
Ok, you're making it yourself very hard now, but I will accept scripts/tools that can verify this. I don't think any other repository is even doing this though.
Now you're wrong. You must be wrong.
Say, TUV releases EL5.3. I am *sure* they rebuild *all* the packages, not only whatever was affected on the way from 5.2->5.3.
This is what *each* and every repo should be doing when EL releases a point update: to rebuild EVERYTHING, just to check it still works.
See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit mass suicide under my rule :-)
That's a strange position. So you complain because you see the flaws, but you only want to help when there are no flaws and in fact there is nothing to fix.
That's malicious. OK, you're within your rights.
Wait. So you blame me for all these things that you don't care about for your own repository ? :-)
I don't say I don't care. This is my first repo ever, so it *might* be broken already. I'd say it's *likely* to be broken!
Hey, I am not Dag! (The last time I checked my ID it carried a different name.)
Can you give me an example of an SRPM that doesn't build. Because we have buildlogs of everything, so everything at least once build.
Probably, that comix thing. I only tried to build from SPEC + tarball, because these are the *real* sources, right?
Then, audacious should be rebuilt to spit out those plugins too.
I don't see the point in trying to rebuild everything for RHEL5.3, RHEL5.4.
That's BECAUSE YOUR REPO SAYS "FOR EL5", AND THE CURRENT VERSION IS 5.3.
You can't claim compatibility when no check is made!!!
So you are just lazy and you want me to do your dirty work, unless it is something simple, then you do it yourself. Regardless you prefer to complain :)
*My* dirty work? (Dirty?!)
It is not. Everything that works, works. The things that do not work, can be fixed.
#define _it_works _installs_from_RPM & _runs & _rebuilds_from_SRPM & _rebuilds_from_SPEC_n_tarball
Can you please list them. I like statistics.
I can't, because only a freak would try to check 7,600 packages on his own laptop! (I doubt I'd even have enough disk space.)
Cheers, R-C (C'est la vie, I know./)
__________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
If a SRPMS builds under CentOS 5.0 and it doesn't under 5.3,then this package is broekn.
Ok, you're making it yourself very hard now, but I will accept scripts/tools that can verify this. I don't think any other repository is even doing this though.
Now you're wrong. You must be wrong.
Unfortunately there has not been the binary compatibility I had hoped for. The move to FireFox 3 was an understandably necessary change that broke some stuff, but other things (especially in EPEL) have been updated that in a perfect world would have only had security patches and functionallity fixes backported to them.
However, the man power just doesn't exist to maintain EPEL that way.
Say, TUV releases EL5.3. I am *sure* they rebuild *all* the packages, not only whatever was affected on the way from 5.2->5.3.
This is what *each* and every repo should be doing when EL releases a point update: to rebuild EVERYTHING, just to check it still works.
This I agree with, to a point. Not everything needs a rebuild pushed, but certainly anything that doesn't build should have the spec fixed for new release, a mass rebuild (even if not all are actually pushed) can detect that.
I suspect again though it is a matter of resources not existing. If shared libraries rarely ever changed though, then there would be less of this type of problem, but unfortunately they do change, at least in the third party repos.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
What was the problem with audacious again ?
# yum install audacious ... Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package audacious.i386 0:1.3.2-5.el5.rf set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 for package: audacious ... --> Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge) ... Error: Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge)
My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing dependency. You were referring the whole time to SRPMs that do not build. But you never give me an example of one.
We publish buildlogs. There is no reason to find it out yourself. I also do not build from the SRPM, I build from the SPEC file directly, so if an SRPM is published, it is because it build fine.
I also build from the SPEC + tarball. I took them from RF and... ...they 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 ?
Without an example, or without an error of why it does not build I cannot even try to fix it.
Oh, I agree completely. So when are you going to help us?
When I'll have a better brain able of a better time management for my life :-(
The audacious package is willing to wait that long :)
If a SRPMS builds under CentOS 5.0 and it doesn't under 5.3,then this package is broekn.
Ok, you're making it yourself very hard now, but I will accept scripts/tools that can verify this. I don't think any other repository is even doing this though.
Now you're wrong. You must be wrong.
Say, TUV releases EL5.3. I am *sure* they rebuild *all* the packages, not only whatever was affected on the way from 5.2->5.3.
This is what *each* and every repo should be doing when EL releases a point update: to rebuild EVERYTHING, just to check it still works.
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 ?
Can you give me an example of an SRPM that doesn't build. Because we have buildlogs of everything, so everything at least once build.
Probably, that comix thing. I only tried to build from SPEC + tarball, because these are the *real* sources, right?
Then, audacious should be rebuilt to spit out those plugins too.
The plugins belong to another package actually. I don't know what is wrong with it, but there are buildlogs.
I don't see the point in trying to rebuild everything for RHEL5.3, RHEL5.4.
That's BECAUSE YOUR REPO SAYS "FOR EL5", AND THE CURRENT VERSION IS 5.3.
You can't claim compatibility when no check is made!!!
I never claimed any compatibility, no waranty, if it breaks you can provide me a patch.
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.
Can you please list them. I like statistics.
I can't, because only a freak would try to check 7,600 packages on his own laptop! (I doubt I'd even have enough disk space.)
Still you complain about lots of packages that fail to rebuild, but if I ask what these are I only get 2 items:
- 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 :)
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Dag Wieersdag@wieers.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
What was the problem with audacious again ?
<snip>
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 ?
+1
Very easy to criticize people who are volunteering their time and doing their best.
-
Dag Wieers -
Lanny Marcus -
Michael A. Peters -
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU