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 :) -- -- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]