Am 22.03.2006 um 01:13 schrieb David R. Morrison:
Max,
I've just expanded the message which fink gives to users upon a
compile failure. If the user is on intel hardware, after the
suggestion to email the maintainer appears the sentence: "Note that
many fink package maintainers do not (y
Max,
I've just expanded the message which fink gives to users upon a
compile failure. If the user is on intel hardware, after the
suggestion to email the maintainer appears the sentence: "Note that
many fink package maintainers do not (yet) have access to OSX on
Intel hardware, so you ma
Am 21.03.2006 um 15:59 schrieb David R. Morrison:
On Mar 20, 2006, at 11:57 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Well, in my eyes, those "rights" were already severely cut when
those packages where moved to the intel tree, without the
maintainers being involved in anyway. Again, I understand the
logisti
On Mar 20, 2006, at 11:57 PM, Max Horn wrote:
Well, in my eyes, those "rights" were already severely cut when
those packages where moved to the intel tree, without the
maintainers being involved in anyway. Again, I understand the
logistic reasons for this. But: by this process, the package
On Mar 21, 2006, at 03:00, Max Horn wrote:
Those batch updates usually involved adding a new field, or
replacing a dependency with a new one. I don't think that the
maintainers need to be notified & asked about this one-by-one.
However, a notification mail explaining the change in a generic
Am 21.03.2006 um 04:08 schrieb Koen van der Drift:
Sometimes one of the core maintainers is doing a batch update of
many packages. Would it be required in such a situation to contact
the maintainers first? That could take many weeks in the worst
case. And mostly it is a change that is not
Am 21.03.2006 um 02:45 schrieb Alexander K. Hansen:
[...]
I think we can all agree that fixing typos requires no particular
expertise with the package in question (and saves the maintainer from
being inundated with messages about the problem).
Indeed, fully agreed.
That is, as long as the p
Sometimes one of the core maintainers is doing a batch update of many
packages. Would it be required in such a situation to contact the
maintainers first? That could take many weeks in the worst case. And
mostly it is a change that is not really an improvement for a
particular package, but
On 3/20/06, Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Am 19.03.2006 um 23:10 schrieb Trevor Harmon:
>
> > On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >> It makes
> >> sense to, by default, defer to the person who understands that
> >> software
> >> well enough to package it, w
Am 19.03.2006 um 23:10 schrieb Trevor Harmon:
On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
[...]
It makes
sense to, by default, defer to the person who understands that
software
well enough to package it, when questions arise.
But this can still be the default in the model I pro
On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
As far as maintainership being in perpetuity, it makes sense to me
because generally the maintainer, in the course of packaging
something,
is most likely to understand issues in new releases of the
software, is
most likely to be able to get
Trevor Harmon wrote:
> But regardless of what I think, Fink's policy should be followed, good
> or bad. On the other hand, it's difficult to follow a policy that isn't
> written down somewhere. That's probably why you're having the problems
> you spoke of. Most people have the best intentions -- t
On Mar 19, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Max Horn wrote:
However, for those package maintainer who *are* willing to quickly
react on such notifications (e.g. me), it is a bit hard to accept
that their packages are simply taken out of their hands :-/.
I believe these problems exist because it's not cle
Max Horn wrote:
> . I am a bit tired of learning about changes to my packages only
> after they've been made. At least you, Ben, take the time to inform me
> about it -- thanks for that (honestly, no sarcasm intended). I
> understand that you have the best intentions with that, of course.
> Howeve
Am 17.03.2006 um 20:27 schrieb Benjamin Reed:
I've updated SDL so that sdl-config uses the -Wl, format for passing
framework args (ie, turn "-framework Foo" into "-Wl,-framework,Foo")
Otherwise some versions of libtool will try to reorder them, or render
the 2nd part of the argument to the rel
15 matches
Mail list logo
