On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Vincent Danen wrote: > > How? What exactly do you mean? Or, rather, how is that different from what > we currently have? ok, I am bad at explaining things, here goes: Currently contribs keeps up to date with cooker. We could either: - have a buildscript rebuild the whole tree for the last stable release (lots of mirrorspace required). Another problem with this approach is that the stuff would be fairly untested - a special contribs for the last stable release that we can still upload to, even if the main release is frozen. Some packagers wouldn't mind rebuilding /testing their stuff for the older release. but some will. But current club-contributers can also use this tree. In this way, the most wanted apps should be kept on par with what is in cooker. This could easily combined with what is currently happening in club.
> > > - via club, but than fix club first: every contributer here should get > > access for uploading and a buildhost should be created. > > Agreed. One reason I'm less active on Club building is the interface to > deal with it is a severe PITA. It needs to be more contribs-like, an easy > way to get packages in. It also needs a controlled environment, like klama, > with chroots for older distribs that constantly have updates applied so that > stuff is built against a sane base. Yes, but who is going to do this? Should mdk do it, or should one of us set up such a host. And we need to integrate it with current scripts/stuff on club. So someone at mdk needs to make time for it. > > > > Suddenly I'm getting very tired of all of this again. Seems no matter how > > > hard you try, someone has something negative to say without contributing > > > something useful. > > I think, it is just the way people use to (mis)communicate. Don't let it > > get to you. Afterall, we all have (approx) the same goal:) > > It's a constant thing. It's difficult not to let it. It seems to always > get to the point where it takes more time and energy to manage the cooker > crowd than any other community. > > Do you manage other communities as well? Anway, I could say that it is because smart people are the most difficult to manage. I could also say that we are so difficult because it is all about control: - we (as in contributers) are supposed to be contribute things. We (at least I) do this because it is fun to do, and because I really want mandrake to succeed. Really wanting someone/something to succeed at something causes you to give (unwanted) advice (my girlfriend hates it when I am just watching her play a game, because i keep saying what she should do). Mandrake doesn't want us to interfer in certain (policy/business) descissions, which is probably their good right. However, this doesn't matter at all, we all "know" what is best for you, and if you will not listen, we will say it anyway:) This frustrates you, leading to above statements (and, if i might add, I think some mdk people are not contributing as well as they should on this list because of this, which is sad but understandable), which will lead to some of us thinking: see, they do not listen! IMO this is exactly the big difference between debian and mdk. In debian, the people have real control (or at least most of them think they do). In redhat, there are hardly contributers, so nobody is complaining about control. In mandrake, we do not have any control at all, but we think we should have. But then, these are just thoughts, and may not reflect reality. If the last one is true, solutions that i see: - give contributers control (or at least a lot more). - give them another reason for packaging/testing (ie paying them;) - stop having contributers. - select only people who never critize anything :) I hate writing long mails. d.
