On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 20:57, Han Boetes wrote: > David Kobler wrote: > > Can't we just set a simple standard to TEST YOUR PACKAGES before uploading > ^^ > > them. It seems that simple things are constantly ignored by those who > > maintain the cooker RPMS. How hard would it be to test your rpms on a > > recently installed cooker box before uploading them? > > Show us the code :) > Maintain a few rpms yourself and your talk a lot different. > Hmmm, I'd bet all (most of) the contrib rpms are at least installed and run. I can't remember the last time fluxbox never started at all ;) > > > This would allow people to test cooker for system specific bugs instead of > > distribution specific bugs that exist because people do not do BASIC testing. > > Nope, you guys are our test subjects. Our labrats. :) > > This is the deal. We make packages and you make decent bugreports or you learn > to live with the fact cooker is broken. > This is somehow the deal, but the point is valid. There is no way to find a bug if the program cannot be started at all on any platform.
<insert favorite rant about kde maintenance, see cooker history>. It's too bad it's becoming accepted. Usually, when something in a project is broken, at least a few people know why, and it is a conscious decision. Incidents are always welcome, but cooker users just hate routine. Simple test cases, a minimal test plan and a few release procedures could be automated and should not be so much of a burden once they are established. It's called investment, and I thought that was what a commercial company had to do. Developing up-to-date kde apps with mdk is just too hard and this is disappointing. I am now learning how to use other libs to avoid kde as much as I can. Not a good way to get more decent bug reports, is it? Note: These are just 2¢ thoughts. I am only sad to see that nothing changes despite years and years of disappointment. -- Quel Qun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
