Thanks, I'll make a note of the urpmi --auto-select technique, but most
of the bugs I report are with the install itself, not just with this
package or that. Without being able to do an install, those aren't
going to get reported, and I can't tell if the old ones have been fixed
(when bugzilla asks me every month).
I fully understand that it is the nature of cooker than things break.
But some things are more critical to the intended goals of cooker than
others. If you want people to test a system install, the install has to
work at least to the point of completing and producing a bootable system.
Have I got this backwards ? Is it really the intention to address only
application package issues in the early part of the release cycle, and
leave install issues until the betas/RCs ?
- [Cooker] The python-urpm idea... Andi Payn
- Re: [Cooker] Re: That obsoletes t... Andi Payn
- [Cooker] 13 mutual-obsoleting... Andi Payn
- [Cooker] xine-lib-compat Götz Waschk
- Re: [Cooker] xine-lib-compat Andi Payn
- Re: [Cooker] xine-lib-compat Götz Waschk
- Re: [Cooker] 13 mutual-obsole... Thierry Vignaud
- Re: [Cooker] 13 mutual-obsole... Andi Payn
- Re: [Cooker] 13 mutual-obsole... Thierry Vignaud
- Re: [Cooker] That obsoletes thing... François Pons
- Re: [Cooker] PLEASE address build/install problems Frank Griffin
- Re: [Cooker] PLEASE address build/install problems w9ya
- Re: [Cooker] PLEASE address build/install prob... Teletchéa Stéphane
- Re: [Cooker] PLEASE address build/install ... Michael Scherer
- Re: [Cooker] PLEASE address build/inst... Teletchéa Stéphane