i agree with Amanda i added some comments there too:
"a) please symlink azureus to vuze. it's annoying that you install 'vuze' but you cant run 'vuze' b) please get a better quality azureus.png! like: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Vuze_icon.png c) also about this failed update thingy: you should disable the update check entirely, that's why we have a package manager, right? like in firefox/thunderbird" what do you think about these? so i vote to keep it "on hold" until all (*) issues are solved. this isnt a "mission critical" since Transmission is installed by default (*) maybe except the swt issues.. but i have an idea here.. there's an option to ship "our" swt with vuze On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Amanda Waite <Amanda.Waite at sun.com> wrote: > Bruce Rothermal wrote: >> >> So before you vote this down. How long will it take to get this bug fixed. >> This package (vuze) is not being ported because it is an interesting piece >> of software. It is a required mandatory package needed for a project in the >> HPC Deployer project. > > Bruce, > > There's an outstanding issue with the classpath that stops Vuze from > actually running. This has been seen on 3 separate installs on 3 separate > systems so it's not environmental. Spoorthy needs to fix that before anyone > should even consider voting on it. It's in the comments. > > Amanda > > >> >> Bruce >> >> >> On May 13, 2009, at 8:41 AM, 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. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sw-porters-discuss mailing list >>> sw-porters-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sw-porters-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sw-porters-discuss mailing list >> sw-porters-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sw-porters-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > sw-porters-discuss mailing list > sw-porters-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sw-porters-discuss > -- Andy http://blog.sartek.net
