> 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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
