Broken deps : Three types of package maintainers

[Karel Volný]

On Friday 29 of January 2010 23:57:39 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:53:52 -0600
> 
> Adam Miller <maxamillion at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > I'd like to publicly, "on list", thank you for your efforts
> > in keeping up with the reporting. It's extremely useful and
> > much appreciated (though I get the feeling you don't hear
> > that often if at all).
> 
> Seconded. ;) Thanks for doing these.

+1

> Would it be of help to have a wiki page to point people at?
> Ie, a 'You got a broken dep email, what should you do now'
>  type of page? I guess it might help with the type 2 people to
>  explain why thats not likely the case for their package.

good idea ... last time, I've wondered what can I do if I want to 
choose to ignore the broken dep intentionally, knowing that a 
rebuild of the affected package will be done soon anyways ... 
finally, after not having found relevant docs, before bothering 
asking someone I gave up and just rebuilt the package ... and the 
same package got rebuilt the very next day again because of other 
reason

btw, IMHO it is counterproductive to put all those rebuilds into 
.spec changelogs - now it happens, if you have some easy package 
that doesn't change much but it requires a lot of libraries then 
you have to scroll down two pages of "rebuilt for this, rebuilt 
for that" messagess between real changes that really interest 
you, the rest is just noise

K.

-- 
Karel Volný
QE BaseOs/Daemons Team
Red Hat Czech, Brno
tel. +420 532294274
(RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074)
xmpp kavol at jabber.cz
:: "Never attribute to malice what can
::  easily be explained by stupidity."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20100201/91570580/attachment.bin