George Drapeau wrote: > > > Eric Reid - Sun ISV Engineering wrote: >> <snip> >>> >>>> >>>> - the app's BitTorrent upload and download capabilities worked >>>> fine; it's good enough to use as a BitTorrent client, but will be >>>> missing some functionality (no rendering of the Vuze HD Network >>>> page since no HTML browser support since it's not in SWT on >>>> OpenSolaris as far as I could tell). >>> If main functionality is there but satelite functionality isnt >>> working, it's good enough for /contrib. But not for other repos. >> Gosh, I have a HUGE problem with this. IPS packages enforce >> dependencies at install time, as do all mature packaging systems >> today. The fact that SJ has a bug, IMHO, is *not* reason enough to >> claim these IPS packages in /contrib are "good enough". All the >> caveats in the world will not head off potential installation >> experience headaches, which will then turn people off from OpenSolaris. > You've changed my mind; rather, I should have been more specific in my > last message about my opinion on the Vuze / Azureus package. I would > call Vuze an alpha or beta level release because it works but lacks > known functionality; I can live with that, if the package submitter > were to rapidly improve the package. But this whole > lack-of-dependency-checking thing is a show-stopper for packages > submitted via Juicer. I apologize; I completely ignored that in my > most recent message, even though I mentioned it my early comments on > the package. > > Dependencies not working: sounds like a no-go to me for any package > submission that specifies package dependencies. Seems like that > should get fixed, then every package submitted that specified > dependencies can be re-checked easily, then they can all go through. > But they shouldn't go through now. > > Separately, Amanda made a good point about the other Vuze package bug, > not correctly specifying the path to swt.jar. That does need to be > fixed before this package is ready to be released. >> >> I could not in good conscience give a +1 to such packages. >> >> I would be curious to hear the opinions of the other SW-Porters Core >> Contributors. >> > Me, too. I think it's straightforward enough: why allow packages to > be released when we know they're missing the dependency stuff? The > bug will get fixed at some point, then we'll just have more packages > ready to be published, but not until then. Do the other Core > Contributors agree? > > G. > I agree with all the latest comments from George, Amanda and Eric.
When I did my previous statements I wasnt aware Vuze was influenced by the dependency bug. Now, being aware of this, Vuze is 'On Hold' until this is fixed. I'm sorry I can't deliver a date of when this is going to be fixed. But it will be soon. Luis
