Ainsi parlait Buchan Milne :
> > What are you expecting from club packages anyway ? Their overall quality
> > has always been crappy, as Denis always refused to enforce any kind of
> > packaging policy.
>
> Well, I hope you aren't saying the KDE packages are crappy, since they are
> rebuilds from cooker ... so if they are, it would seem "Denis' refusal"
> has nothing to do with package quality???
>
> Also, Denis had to set the system up with constraints which make it
> difficult to use existing tools for some checking. Anyway, please show
> which of the current packages in test:
> http://www.mandrakeclub.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=RPM&type=testing
> are crappy. Most of them are either cooker rebuilds, or have been uploaded
> to contrib (with no errors from bots or rpmlint), or are improvements over
> packages which were initially available in the comm source (ie done by
> ysomeone internally, and fixed by a contributor after starting from
> scratch). Or maybe you want to tell us which packages in free:
> ftp://archive.sun.ac.za/mandrake/mandrake-devel/unsupported/MandrakeClub/9.
>1/SRPMS/ are so crappy?
I've spoken of overall quality, not of specific packages. And it's precisely
because Denis choose the reinvent the wheel from scratch instead of using and
extending contributer system than tools as rpmlint, distriblint and other are
impossible to use.
> Please don't just jump on the subject when the facts may not support your
> favourite gripe with MandrakeClub.
>
> The problem is that the person who uploaded them (fafane) seems to not
> actually test installation via urpmi.
May i remember you that this kind of problem is checked by upload script on
klama ? That it is also later checked by distriblint ?
--
Guillaume Rousse
The worse the weather, the more you are required to be out in it
-- Murphy's Bush Fire Brigade Laws n°17
