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@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
