On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 08:59:17AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 16:45 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Yes, for gcc, the kernel, glibc and other major components I'd agree. > > > > For new packages, it's surely better to have a new crap package than > > no package at all. After all, a new crap package *might* work for > > someone, but a missing package definitely won't. > > > > For packages that not many people use, and the sort of packages I'm > > doing (which are for developers who really should know what's what), a > > 6-month cycle of organized around delivery of a circular piece of > > plastic is fairly irrelevant. > > I agree to an extent. However no matter how fringe the package, an > improper requires or inadvertent provides can wreak havoc. I'd rather > not see those go directly into the pending release. Yes, this is a problem, a rogue package that has 'Provides: glibc', but I tend to think this is a problem with RPM or Fedora itself, which should (somehow!) prevent that. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW http://www.annexia.org/fedora_mingw -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
