Well I switched mirrors and ALL of the programs I was complaining about appear to have been fixed over the past couple/three days !
My hat is off to those who worked so hard on this, am I am glad things are back on track. Good job and thank you for not only the work but by being attentive to this ml. Best regards; Bob Finch On Monday 11 August 2003 08:21 am, w9ya wrote: > Actaully I am rather getting use to the way things are now. It is really > handy to have over 50 basic packages not upgradable without manual > intervention. And not being able to fiqure out what is going on because of > lousy spec files and other such lousy practices by the package maintainers. > The endless need to get in and dirty and remove packages manually because > urpmi can't or won't upgrade packages (nor should it under these > circumstances) is actually becoming a major part of my day. Posting a list > of such packages to this mailing list (as I and others have done) does not > seem to help either. > > Yes I am whining. But yes the above is also very true. Am I entitled to be > whining ? Perhaps not. At this point I really don't care. Really. > > SIgh > > Bob Finch > > On Monday 11 August 2003 07:20 am, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > > Ainsi parlait Abel Cheung : > > > On 2003-08-11(Mon) 13:17:21 +0200, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > > > > > Fair enough but this is very dangerous! Think about dropping > > > > > security patches because they don't apply properly :( > > > > > > > > Well, i had no means to know it was a security patch, and i spend too > > > > much time just clearing the spec to really care. > > > > > > Checking patches is a basic responsibility of package maintainers :-( > > > > Keeping spec clean to help other people understand it also.
