On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Jeff Johnson wrote: <snip> > > > > That's an interesting POV. In that case I'd say rpm has outgrown its > > original design - there are many rpms out in the wild with little or > > no QA. I can see how Red Hat could take the "not our problem" stance > > on that though. > > > > Yah, mon, these bits were never intended for the rock'n-roll that > is currently going on. > > Still, the rpm bits *were* designed to make install into a chroot > trivial for QA purposes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with > that design decision, i.e. test before you release. > I don't believe being able to recover from some failures precludes (nor should it) testing before you release (-; > > > It's really not that hard to check package quality by installing > > > in a chroot. It's simply not possible to recover from all possible > > > errors, nor even a significant subset of all possible errors. > > > > Agreed - it's not possible to achieve a 100% recovery; however there > > is the potential for a best effort recovery, and that grey area is > > more or less what we're discussing here. > > > > And so we move to definition of "best effort", your (and James Olin Odin's) > definition are different than others. My own answer is > Patches cheerfully accepted. > as always. > > Yes it sometimnes takes a while to get the patch integrated, sorry James ;-) > Not a problem. We all want our own patches integrated yesterday, but I'm not paying your bills (-; Really, I appreciate all help and input I have got thus far. Thanks...james _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
