>From http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090629"....Right next to the Gentoo stand was a group of young people, proudly displaying their affiliation with CentOS. Dag Wieers, the well-known maintainer of a once very popular RPM repository, greeted me with a big smile: "Do you know CentOS?" When I introduced myself, he looked somewhat disappointed: "Oh, so you know CentOS..." Still, we found a lot to talk about. "Yes, CentOS is often considered a server operating system," explained Dag, "but we are trying to change that. In fact, the latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)." He asserted: "CentOS can be a perfect system for those who need long-term stability and who don't want to take frequent and potentially risky upgrade paths." ...." A quick look at http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=centos shows that a great majority of the packages are not even close to being "up-to-date", and that is a good thing for those us of who care more about stability than eyecandy.>From the comment "...latest release has many up-to-datedesktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)..." is is safe to assume that future releases of Centos will remain a "built from publicly available open source SRPMS provided by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors redistribution policies and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork).", AND all additional non-PNAELV packages will remain in the extra repository??? thanks bn
> A quick look at http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=centos > shows that a great majority of the packages are not even > close to being "up-to-date", and that is a good thing for > those us of who care more about stability than eyecandy.That can't be other way. For instance, you can't build GIMP 2.4 or 2.6 unless you you upgrade to a newer GTK+, which would impact on a lot of apps. OTOH, Dag is in a funny position: he's the main maintainer of RPMforge, which has 2 main issues: (1) It's broken, at least partially. Try install audacious for one. (2) It's incompatible with EPEL. Try install MPlayer and VLC with EPEL enabled. To workaround some of the issues and make CentOS 5.3 a suitable distro for my Acer laptop (except that I don't use wireless and I haven't even tried to), I've made my own repo here: http://odiecolon.lastdot.org/ Read the first-page text and rationale *very* carefully! It's therefore an ugly hack to allow: *** the use of the following packages from RPMforge: (1) gstreamer-plugins-bad gstreamer-plugins-ugly gstreamer-ffmpeg (2) mplayer mplayer-fonts mplayer-skins mplayerplug-in smplayer (3) vlc *** the regular use of EPEL for everything else; *** the use of newer packages, such as GIMP 2.3.15 as an "almost-2.4" alternative to the obsolete 2.2.12; *** the use of other (unavailable in EPEL or newer) packages, including "cosmetic mood enhancers": (i) gnome-dustwave-theme 0.1, a mix of two themes introduced with Ubuntu Jaunty: it uses Dust for Metacity, and New Wave for the GTK+ decorations. Compiz effects *must* be disabled. (ii) gtk-nimbus-theme 0.1.2, the latest default theme that comes with OpenSolaris 2009.06. As I am not even on my home continent these days and I can't fix any reported issue right now (oh well, but does Dag ever fix RPMforge?), I have not announced this repo in any public place, but it was nevertheless announced on epel-devel-list: https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2009-June/msg00103.html Be free to test and report. Thanks, R-C aka B?ranger __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
> (1) I expect now patches from you to make a workable > audacious based on our audacious package. Apparently > you have the interest and the time to do it ?RF's audacious has unmet dependencies. It's as simple as that. It lacks audacious-plugins.> (2) No, they are not compatible, we know. Share to > help with this too ? > You first have to convince the Fedora > people that they will not > introduce new incompatibilities before starting.Nay. Please read again how my tiny repo tries to "fix/hack" the 4 libs from EPEL that break RF's MPlayer and VLC. Should the Fedora people be insensitive, what prevents you from just "suck in" the newer libdvdread, libdvdnav, libcaca and lzo from EPEL and just rebuild RF's VLC and MPlayer? Because, honestly, a good deal of people only need the MPlayer+VLC+gstream stuff from RF. My understanding is that RF is so huge that it's very hard to manage, but... I'm afraid I have to say it's quite a "static" repo which doesn't try to rebuild anything!> Shall I simply stop doing RPMforge ?Hopefully not, *but* how about 400 rock-solid packages in RF instead of 8,000 packages with: some abandoned; some broken; etc.?> Is that the position you prefer to force me into ? > Because I certainly did not force you into using > the repository.Nobody is trying to force anyone into anything. It just happens that your repo is the only one to offer VLC, for instance. And I personally needed a quick & dirty hack to accommodate RF with EPEL. That's all.> I don't know even why you want to use RPMforge, there must > be something that is missing from EPEL ?Yes. Let me state again: yum --enablerepo=rpmforge install gstreamer-plugins-bad gstreamer-plugins-ugly gstreamer-ffmpeg yum --enablerepo=rpmforge install mplayer mplayer-fonts mplayer-skins mplayerplug-in smplayer yum --enablerepo=rpmforge install vlc That's all I need from VLC. Dozens of multimedia dependent packages though. Some of them legally unsuitable for EPEL. And RPM Fusion doesn't even have VLC.> I am happy to learn what you want to do though, because it > is easy to criticize, but it takes time to do some work.I know, and I understand that you are now vexed, but, like I said: instead of 8,000 packages in RF, better have 400 rock-solid ones?> (And I hope the solution is not another repository, because > we have been there :-))The solution is *always* another repo. Why do you believe there are so many Linux distros? Are they really NEEDED? Nope. They're more than 3-4 distros because people can NOT cooperate properly, and their quick fix is to fork and whatnot. Cheers, R-C __________________________________________________________________ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
> I am still waiting for it. I am willing to give you commit > access to fix all the things that irritate you. I offered > the same to others.Actually, how do we know what builds and validates in RF and what doesn't? You should rather trigger a global SRPMS rebuild and... whatever fails to build should go to /dev/null! Take the example of RF's Comix package. I dunno how have you built the RPM, because the SRPM won't build no matter what I tried! (I even suspected that someone has built Comix on a Fedora box, and since the binary seemed to work on CentOS/EL too...) In my view, a repo should be consistent, and its own SRPMS should only need the official EL clone repo to build, or whatever is agreed to be a required dependency (e.g. Fusion declaratively requires EPEL, and even my tiny repo requires or *might* require EPEL for *some* dependencies). If a SRPMS builds under CentOS 5.0 and it doesn't under 5.3, then this package is broekn. I am sorry to decline your offer: I don't need access to a 8,000-package repo, for later I could be accused of some breakage I might have not caused. Unless RF starts from zero (that is, by tossing whatever does not build), I am not interested: better not touch it. Otherwise, everyone is free to rebuild from: http://odiecolon.lastdot.org/el5/SRPMS/ If it doesn't work... c'est la vie. This is the first time in my life that I've built RPMs, so...> It was maintained by matthias in the past, and he > left. I could remove the packages, but that would not > help.Oh yes, it would. Instead of many broken packages, better fewer, but self-containing/self-consistent.> > Should the Fedora people be insensitive, what prevents > > you from just "suck in" the newer libdvdread, libdvdnav, > > libcaca > > and lzo from EPEL and just rebuild RF's VLC and MPlayer? > > I recommend you to go and try do it and see how much else > depends on these and what no longer builds because of it > and how much time you end up spending for something that > doesn't do more than before eventually if you make it work.This is the problem with a 8,000-package repo. Hey, even RHEL has only 2,400 or whatever they have!> Should I rebuild it just because EPEL upgraded their > libraries ? Will EPEL fix the compatibility with the > clamav package, a conflict they introduced ?That's a delicate question.> RPMforge has about 20 to 30 new commits every week, and we > do update lots of packages regularly. The hard ones we may > not do unless there is a compelling reason and it still > compiles against older distributions.Umm... so let me get it straight (yes, I can be very mean): you *update* or *add* new packages instead of fixing the broken ones? Isn't this approach more like... Ubuntu's?> An automated buildsystem that would rebuild all dependencies > would be great, I don't have it though.Moi non plus.> We have those 400 rock solid packages, even more than that. > I'd say less than 5% are in a bad shape. And audacious is > probaby one of the more visible ones. But again, why do > you expect me to fix them, when you have a need for it ?Because a repo should be consistent. It should be able to rebuild from its own SRPMS. Whatever doesn't fit the picture should go to /dev/null.> What is the difference between a package that cannot be > installed, and a package that is not available ?The same as the difference between "honey, I wanted to cheat on you, but I couldn't find anyone willing to fsck with me" and "honey, this temptation never existed for me"! It's peace of mind. "Now, let's see if this package is broken or not.... oh, it's not broken." But seriously, it's not 5%. If a SRPM doesn't build, then it's broken. This way you could very well have 20% of breakage, in real terms. You know, in the F/LOSS world the idea is that the sources be available *and* that they would build.> Everyone expects it to be fixed.Just delete the packages that don't rebuild. Then, maybe someone will get involved.> Fine, but then stop demanding something to be fixed, > because you're talking about the little free time I > have. Send me a fix, or even better offer to fix it > yourself.Whatever I could fix and build and I was interested in, would normally get into my tiny repo. SRPMs available.> Then do something about it. Instead of a consumer (and > complainer), become a producer (and contributor).VLC and MPlayer have so many dependencies, that my nerves just broke. Really. I wanted to build them, but then...> And the believe that one repo will rule them all (which > is what Fedora and EPEL wants you to believe) is just > debunked by yourself above :-)Well, I don't have such a strong belief in any repo, the same way I have zero belief in God.> let my users down because there is no real upgrade path > (the fact that you > for some reason need RPMforge is the proof).That's cute. Indeed, I *need* RF, despite all the "defamatory" howto/disclaimer on how I use my repo with EPEL and only enable RF for a few things, etc.> But don't expect me (or dries, christoph, fabian, ...) to > fix it because that simply *does* *not* *scale*.7,600 packages is really too much for a couple of people to maintain. Unless it's scaled *down*... Regards, R-C __________________________________________________________________ The new Internet Explorer? 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
> led to the great compiler we have today.? The same > would hold for any large project (the kernel, firefox, etc.)And... are you happy with the quality of the huge $h1t which is Firefox? Because I am not. As for the Linux kernel, they pushed in all kind of crap. Back in 1996, I was running Linux with X in only 8 Megs of RAM! Now, I doubt I could even boot with such a memory... Linux is not like Jesus. Linux is not "good", nor "great". It's only "much less worse" than Windows, and marginally better than the BSDs. Of course, it's open source and so on. But it's a huge crap like everything that's software nowadays.> I fail to see why tens of micro repos are easier > to maintain consistent than a large one.?They're not. But at least you don't have to make people get along.> > 7,600 packages is really too much for a couple of > people to > > maintain. Unless it's scaled *down*... > > ...or scale the maintainers up.Still, 7,600 is unmaintainable. For their ~20k packages, both Debian and Ubuntu use dozens and dozens of packages. (And I won't mention the quality of Ubuntu's packages.) As for TUV, they decided they can only support ~2.5k packages, regardless of the fact that they're the #1 Linux company. I maintain that RF is way too large to be properly maintainable. Cheers, R-F __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
> So we have centosplus and extras which are the repos with > "access denied" for packages inclusion. Dag's rpmforge > which is so huge with a lot of dependencies not suitable > for "testing/bleeding edge/alternative" packages. So > what's the suitable repo? That's why people are going to > run own repos.... :o( I do it myself.We even have centos.karan.org, with all the packages for 5 in... "testing", since 2007. Oh boy. Too many repos, working or not, with packages frozen in testing or not, and this is exactly why I needed my tiny repo to partially "fix" the RPMforge<->EPEL breakage with regards to the exact RF packages I am interested in, and also to add packages that couldn't go into EPEL (like a newer GIMP that would not require any other library update), etc. So no, I don't have a problem with Dag, as someone suggested. I only find partially-broken repos "not Zen" (bad karma, if you wish), and it's even worse when their SRPMs can't build. But I *do* have a problem with RPM Fusion and Karanbir's repo, because they keep packages in "testing" even if nothing happens (they could stay there until 2014, right?). RPMRepo is the best proof that collaboration is close to impossible. And ElRepo is the best proof that other small repos could arise, and they have a reason to exist. But all this is on the "expenses" (not pecuniary, but *nervous*) of the end user, who will get confused and who might also experience system breakage. (No, priorities don't fix everything that easily.) Cheers, R-C __________________________________________________________________ The new Internet Explorer? 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
> How many employees does Canonical have? AFAIK, it all > started with a group of 30 odd Debian developers.Yes, but when they started, they mainly rebuilt the upstream (Debian) packages, right?> Compare this with the russian ALT Linux distribution: > 150 paid full time developers only to maintain the distro.I'm not buying this number. It's too big. Compare to Pardus, which also employs a number of paid developers, it's more popular than ALT, and it still has less paid devs. But maybe they are employing 150, what do I know...> As for Red Hat, according to recent news, they're moving > from 2.000 to approximately 2.800 employees.And they still refuse to add even 10 or 20 packages to EL, even as a "technology preview" (which is unsupported, AFAIR). Cheers, R-C __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
> Firefox was better than Mozilla.?Nay. Only Firefox 0.9 was better than Mozilla. Later on, bloatware won.> It's definitely worth noting that, Epiphany & > Firefox popped up so quickly because they built on > Mozilla's rendering, etc.Yes, it's easier to add bloatware on a solid open-sourced base...> Things get pushed in the kernel, Xorg, etc. for a good > reason, even if we fail to see it.Hopefully, there is Someone up there who sees it. Then He will come for a second time to bring salvation to us. Hopefully, there is no HAL, no UDEV, no PulseAudio in either heaven or hell.> Well, you just said a few lines up that enough maintainers > are proven to keep up even 3x this size.? Not to > mention the (PLD, I think) examples someone else brought > in the thread.I can't tell of PLD, as I have never used it. Next time someone will tell of Arch etc. etc. Not the right approach IMHO. Cheers, R-C __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
> He wants me to do some things for him for free > (unfortunately I am a freelancer and not a millionaire).Not for *me*!!! It's only a matter of perception. I normally don't like when a SRPM doesn't build, and I believe that until it's fixed, it should either be removed (alongside with the corresponing RPMs), or be moved to a "testing" section. That's all. But this also means that helping to fix some issues in such a huge repo is frightening, and as long as it won't fix the RF<->EPEL incompatibility, I won't see the motivation! As Dag noted, those 4 newer libs in EPEL that break VLC and MPlayer (so my repo ugly fixes the issue for *me* and for whoever likes to use those repos the way *I* do it) are not an easy issue: should anyone want to rebuild everything in RPMforge that depends on them, most likely some packages wouldn't build at all! So: RF can't be "fixed", EPEL can't be "fixed". To avoid the annoyance of protecting packages and whatnot, I've put in *my* repo Dag's older libs with versions higher than whatever is now in EPEL, so that EPEL won't break Dag's VLC and MPlayer. Oh, maybe this breaks some other multimedia apps from EPEL, but I am not using EPEL for multimedia, so I don't care. Maybe I am stuck with my ideas, and maybe I should be thinking "outside of the box". OK, but I also know that "outside of the box be dragons", so I just won't go outside of the box ;-) R-C __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
> What was the problem with audacious again ?# yum install audacious ... Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package audacious.i386 0:1.3.2-5.el5.rf set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 for package: audacious ... --> Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge) ... Error: Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge)> We publish buildlogs. There is no reason to find it out > yourself. I also do not build from the SRPM, I build from > the SPEC file directly, so if an SRPM is published, it is > because it build fine.I also build from the SPEC + tarball. I took them from RF and... ...they don't build! When they *did* build, it was maybe 2007. Now it's 2009 and EL5.3 and... it doesn't build :-(> Oh, I agree completely. So when are you going to help us?When I'll have a better brain able of a better time management for my life :-(> If a SRPMS builds under CentOS 5.0 and it doesn't > under 5.3,then this package is broekn. > > Ok, you're making it yourself very hard now, but I > will accept scripts/tools that can verify this. > I don't think any other repository is > even doing this though.Now you're wrong. You must be wrong. Say, TUV releases EL5.3. I am *sure* they rebuild *all* the packages, not only whatever was affected on the way from 5.2->5.3. This is what *each* and every repo should be doing when EL releases a point update: to rebuild EVERYTHING, just to check it still works. See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit mass suicide under my rule :-)> That's a strange position. So you complain because you see > the flaws, but you only want to help when there are no flaws > and in fact there is nothing to fix.That's malicious. OK, you're within your rights.> Wait. So you blame me for all these things that you don't > care about for your own repository ? :-)I don't say I don't care. This is my first repo ever, so it *might* be broken already. I'd say it's *likely* to be broken! Hey, I am not Dag! (The last time I checked my ID it carried a different name.)> Can you give me an example of an SRPM that doesn't build. > Because we have buildlogs of everything, so everything at > least once build.Probably, that comix thing. I only tried to build from SPEC + tarball, because these are the *real* sources, right? Then, audacious should be rebuilt to spit out those plugins too.> I don't see the point in trying to rebuild everything for > RHEL5.3, RHEL5.4.That's BECAUSE YOUR REPO SAYS "FOR EL5", AND THE CURRENT VERSION IS 5.3. You can't claim compatibility when no check is made!!!> So you are just lazy and you want me to do your dirty work, > unless it is something simple, then you do it yourself. > Regardless you prefer to complain :)*My* dirty work? (Dirty?!)> It is not. Everything that works, works. The things > that do not work, can be fixed.#define _it_works _installs_from_RPM & _runs & _rebuilds_from_SRPM & _rebuilds_from_SPEC_n_tarball> Can you please list them. I like statistics.I can't, because only a freak would try to check 7,600 packages on his own laptop! (I doubt I'd even have enough disk space.) Cheers, R-C (C'est la vie, I know./) __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
> yes, perhaps the english language is alien to you - the > word 'testing' means something, there is a reason why > those packages are there in 'testing' - people who > dont know what they are doing are recommended to > NOT use them.Karanbir, I've always 'appreciated' you being such a 'nice' person and giving so 'detailed insights' on this list, that I'm so tempted to give a politically-incorrect reply... Otherwise, I am using CentOS *despite* you being a member of the team. (Not that anyone would care.) OTOH, it's such an accomplishment to have *all* the packages in "testing" since 2007 and none of them passing the QA requirements... R-C __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
> Where did you see the QA requirements for the packages > in c.k.o ?I didn't. But since you say that there is a reason for them to be in "testing", I then assumed the reason was "testing". But then, the activity usually called "testing" is part of a process usually called Quality Assurance. But hey, maybe I am way to stupid to match your geniality!> Also, why are you ignoring what has already > been said to you about the repo and the target > audience its aimed at ?*What* exactly has been said and by whom? I only saw you inferring what it's *not* aimed at: people who don't like things in "testing". As I said, and as everyone on this list knows: KB is not a person to talk with. Usually, KB would throw offensive assertion to people. No matter what KB would say, and no matter how important is KB to the CentOS project, a quick search through the centos ML archives would show that KB is not someone easy to deal with. Probably I should stop posting to this list. I only mentioned KB's repo in the context of packages staying in "testing" for years. R-C __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
> I Can not speak for others, but the only time i have > seen Karanbir be stern with anyone is when they do > deserve it.Well, I've read him saying in various ways and on several occasions something that would equate "RTFM", only it was put in such an offensive way that even myself, as an external reader, I felt compassion for the poor user who was asking an innocent question just to be slapped over the face.> I have no idea what your deal is though with going > after anyone and everybody. Do you just love attacking > people in gerernal?Of course. I also like killing kittens and sodomizing kids. If telling to someone that there are issues with "his" repo (that was RPMforge and Dag is #1 when comes to RF) is an attack, then your world and my world are different, and *your* world is broken. Basically, I have been answered that I cannot ask for consistency for something that's free unless I help fixing the issues. Fair enough. But then, if mentioning that KB's repo for EL5 is still having *everything* in testing (the repo for EL4 is not in testing, and it even wasn't in testing a few years ago when I was using it) is still an attack... ...whereas KB's *offending* and *despising* answer (because *this* is how he usually replies!) basically says that I am an idiot who shouldn't use his repo (only that he wasn't using these exact words, so he's technically "politically correct" in the way he's telling people that they're morons that should shut the fsck up) is not an attack, huh? Well, then raise a statue to the beloved KB, because I'm gonna shut the fuck up. This is not a community, and I know of several people who use ScientificLinux not because it's better, but because on their mailing list, their developers *don't* imply that people are morons when they spit an answer to the list. But now, you're right: should I have the chance to meet KB in person, I'd punch him in the face with an infinite pleasure. R-C __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
> Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS > Project?concentrate on the core product and do a really good > job on that (i.e, a?move closer to the old 4 week release lag > than the current 10 week?release lag), and I would much rather > see this than effort diluted by?taking on a contrib repo.? Right: http://beranger.org/v3/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/useless_chart_rhel5_clones.png ? After all, I love (some) charts from time to time. ? R-C ? __________________________________________________________________ The new Internet Explorer? 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20090630/14823df3/attachment-0003.html>
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:>> Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS >> Project?concentrate on the core product and do a really good >> job on that (i.e, a?move closer to the old 4 week release lag >> than the current 10 week?release lag), and I would much rather >> see this than effort diluted by?taking on a contrib repo. > ? > Right: > http://beranger.org/v3/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/useless_chart_rhel5_clones.png > ? > After all, I love (some) charts from time to time.I'd be very interested to have a similar chart of the average delay for updates plotted in time. Not because I think it shows something fantastic, but rather to give us a better target to meet. -- -- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
> My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing > dependency.Which still == broken repo.> You were referring the whole time to SRPMs that do not build. > But you never give me an example of one.On the contrary, I mentioned Comix. But again, I never try the SRPM, but the SPEC+tarball. Which don't build.> > When they *did* build, it was maybe 2007. Now it's 2009 and > > EL5.3 and... it doesn't build :-( > > Care to give an example ? Then I can point you to the buildlog and you > might be able to find the cause of your problem by comparing ?Comix, for God's sake.> The audacious package is willing to wait that long :)Nope, because I've built it *for myself*, i.e. in my repo.> > See, this is why I am not a QA manager anywhere: people would commit > > mass suicide under my rule :-) > > Maybe the problem is indeed you, and not the repository. You expect > too much from people who volunteer their own time. As I said now > multiple times, unless you are not yourself committed to help, > why expect someone else to do it ?Because you either do something properly, or don't do it at all.> Maybe RPMforge should ask for money for those people who expect > more than we offer. But I seriously doubt you would pay for it. > So what we do is best effort, much like any other repository really.Maybe Ubuntu should ask for money from those people who expect more than they offer. But would this improve Ubuntu's quality? I very much doubt it.> >? - audacious has a missing dependency (audacious-plugins) >? - comix SRPM does not rebuild > > That's 2 packages, I think we do quite well if that is it :)But this is only because I am not crazy enough to try 7,600 packages! Cheers, R-C __________________________________________________________________ Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/
> >> The audacious package is willing to wait that long > :) > > > > Nope, because I've built it *for myself*, > > i.e. in my repo. > > And was your patch rejected from the places you are > complaining about?There. Is. No. Question. About. Any. Patch. When you build audacious from SPEC + tarball, it spits out audacious + audacious_plugins, both as RPMs and as SRPMs (actually, it spits around 15 plugins RPMs). RPMforge misses the plugins, that's all. Probably just triggering a rebuild would fix it all. Instead of talking for ages about patches, what builds and what doesn't, and why "better services" would need pay etc. maybe someone (Dag?) could have triggered the rebuild of audacious for 100 times in the meantime. Truly yours, R-C __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
> Buildlogs are available from: > > ??? http://packages.sw.be/comix/_buildlogs/ > > I hope you come back and tell me what was your problem.I have to be back on my continent before addressing this issue. So far, I can see that the build of Comix seems to have been done by Dries, and that it was successful in April 2009. I am pretty much sure I can prove it *won't* compile on any EL5 clone with the officially available versions of: BuildRequires: python, python-imaging, pygtk2-devel I am not sure what mushrooms were installed on the build machine. It *doesn't* build with: pygtk2-devel-2.10.1-12.el5.i386 python-imaging-devel-1.1.5-5.el5.i386 Which is whatever EL5 has. I can see that RF has a slightly newer version of python-imaging-1.1.6-2.el5.rf.i386 but as long as the SPEC file doesn't require a newer version than 1.1.5, nor does the tarball's Makefile, I *don't* pull updates from RF. Maybe I should have did it, but then the SPEC is incomplete and it assumes that whatever version is OK when it's not. I'll check this in a couple of days. OTOH, frankly, I should rather find some time (which I don't have) to fscking build my own VLC and MPlayer and gstreamer-* so I won't need RPMforge in the future. Frankly, I hate huge repos. Yes, even Debian's. Whatever is huge can't be maintained with the current mindset of the FLOSS people. R-C __________________________________________________________________ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
> I believe that YOU are the only person on this list > who has expressed an interest in "audacious" > (whatever it is & does) for CentOS during these several > days of rant.?I believe that YOU are the only person on this list (whoever you are & do) to have suggested popularity as a required raison d'?tre. Maybe we should make a poll: from the 8,614 RPM files RPMforge are, I am pretty much sure you wouldn't find in a couple of days more than 1 person to express interest in *half* of them. Should half of them be dropped? R-C __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Bogdan Nicolescu<bo2k2 at yahoo.com> wrote:> > >From http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090629 > > "....Right next to the Gentoo stand was a group of young people, proudly displaying their affiliation with CentOS. > Dag Wieers, the well-known maintainer of a once very popular RPM > repository, greeted me with a big smile: "Do you know CentOS?" When I > introduced myself, he looked somewhat disappointed: "Oh, so you know CentOS..." Still, we found a lot to talk about. "Yes, CentOS is often > considered a server operating system," explained Dag, "but we are > trying to change that. In fact, the latest release has many up-to-date > desktop packages and we also have an extra repository with many > application and drivers that are not officially part of Red Hat > Enterprise Linux (RHEL)." He asserted: "CentOS can be a perfect system > for those who need long-term stability and who don't want to take > frequent and potentially risky upgrade paths." ...."A serious doubt has been raised about the credibility of that story. Did the reporter indeed meet Dag at the CentOS booth? Or was it at a nearby pub? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/3679382429_d535f79823_o.jpg (info offered by NedSlider) Akemi
> no, trolling works much better on high volume lists > like this one.I officially declare that whoever uses the word "troll" is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb "to troll" was invented by some ***arrogant*** F/LOSS developers to assert that any *conversation* that looks slightly critical to them is not a "legitimate" one, but a "wicked" attempt to sabotage their prestige. Wait, maybe "trolling" was not invented by some Linux/BSD developer(s), but rather by Stalin himself! Sincerely, I believe that whoever is accusing *anyone* of "trolling" is a stupid asshole. Since when critical conversation is not "politically correct" and even denied in the era of the hyper-inflated, arrogant Linux and BSD developers and users? R-C __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/