[CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag

[Radu-Cristian FOTESCU]

> 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