2006/9/6, Jason Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think specific problems reported to the bug tracker would help the > developers. A wholesale scanning of all packages won't really help > cause none of the developers will want to sift through it and figure > out what problems are problems and what aren't...
Yeah, you're right. Today I had two exams. On Friday I'll have another. And so on for a couple of weeks. It's the best I can do, now, it's not very much, but still better than being kicked in your face, isn't it? ;-) > It's true, we don't have any room for metadata like that right now. > Though, it could be added. My fear is that they would be abused and > the assumptions wouldn't be checked ie. if a package *did* depend on > gcc that next version, but the developer told it to ignore that > message, how would they even know to check? Right, this is the point. You can fully trust your developers but... well, shit happens :), that's why I don't like it. It comes to my mind the new Windows Vista. It's alway been unsecure and easy to use. Now it seems it'll be a little more secure, but to the point of being incredibly annoying. Inverse path, same problem. bardo _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
