Jarod Wilson schrieb: > On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 17:33 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> CCing jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx, owner of beryl >> Mamoru Tasaka schrieb: >>> Clive Messer wrote: >>>> It looks like only some of beryl has been pushed to repo ....... >>> Missing deps are under FE-Review or are waiting for FE CVS to >>> come back again to be rebuilt. >> Then why the heck was beryl build for FC-6 if it was known that some >> hardcoded deps were not yet in cvs and not ready to be build? People >> will run into issues that way when using yum and thus the it's just a >> totally stupid thing to do in a stable branch (and even quite bad in the >> deel-branch, too). >> /me is getting more and more annoyed with all those broken deps and >> broken upgrade paths (some of them for months)... > The only hard-coded deps that can't be met at the moment are on the > meta-packages for installing all the beryl bits. As mentioned, the > initial beryl-core package had no unresolved deps, but subsequent > discussion while reviewing other beryl components led to the creation of > some meta-packages to make installing all beryl bits easier for > end-users. I appreciate that idea, but it would have been better if you would have waited realizing this idea until the bits that the meta-packages requires are at least in CVS and ready to build. ;) > I guess I wasn't thinking when I pushed the beryl-core build > w/the meta-packages enabled. My apologies for being "totally stupid". Sorry, maybe I overreacted a bit. But we get more at more of this little mistakes and stuff here and there that don't get fixed. That really annoys me. We really need to be more careful. > Of > course, this would be (mostly) moot by now had cvs not taken a > nose-dive... :) Yeah, bad luck. Anyway, thx for your work on the beryl packages! Cu thl -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
