forgive me but, I believe there was a reaction going on before the TU discussion started, due to zattoo, which I strongly believe was the key element in Jens unfavourable situation. Again, in order to have a discussion, one should be encouraged, rather than terrified of being vulnerable. No offence, but I strongly suggest that you focus on Jens right now, and find a way to improve the guidelines for "strict" package policy. And of course, it's so much waste of time for nothing, and this is why I decline of becoming TU. Sorry guys, but the makepkg concept isn't really that much organized at all. I think both sides should improve themselves, which is a fair deal, and fair way of advancing Arch.
Kind regards, Ali On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Stefan Husmann <stefan-husm...@t-online.de>wrote: > Hello, > > I think Jens and me got some thoughts about the reasons now, why the > appliance failed. I would have expected this discussion in the discussion > period, which was quite calm 8I now see that you guys expected some answers > from Jens and me). > > But now I think it is time to calm down a bit and to answer some questions. > > Yes, the zattoo-software is bad, and the symlinking is dangerous. But on > the on hand discussion was about TU appliance, not about moving zattoo to > community. The latter will never happen, I think also the license forbids > this. On the other hand, if we follow the arch way, we do what upstreamers > want us to do, without much patching. And I really do not see a way to get > zattoo working without much googling and searching libraries from third > sources. And on i686 zattoo works surprisingly well with that bad symlinks > (no known way for x86_64). > > install -d is preferable over mkdir -p, but also in extra are packages, > that do not fullfil this point. As Angel said, I think this was a minor > issue inthe rejection. > > So let us now stick moree to the other Appliance we have these days. again > thank you for th discussion. > > Regards Stefan >