> 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