-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Quel Qun wrote: > On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 21:41, Ben Reser wrote: > >>On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:47:37AM -0500, Murray J. Root wrote: >> >>>The problem is not a broken KDE that requires patching. It is the >>>unnecessary addition of "requirements" that are not really "required". >>>This has been a problem in Mandrake for a long time. That is why I >>>said to quit beating the horse - the Mandrake team disagrees with >>>using "requires" the same way an English speaker uses it and it is >>>quite clear that no amount of messages to the list is going to get >>>them to change it. So live with the bloat or force nodeps. >> >>I don't really agree with you Murray. I disagree with some of the >>requires we have. But I have successfully gotten some removed. mutt's >>require on urlview comes to mind. >> > > Ben, the problem is the attitude of the KDE packager, not much to do > with mutt.
So, you are going to return the favour by also having a bad attitude? Where is that going to get us? > > >>I have found as Buchan points out that it is far more successful to fix >>the problem and submit the patch than simply complain about the issue. >>If someone really wants to split KDE then someone should take the time >>to repackage it split out. Submit the patch and let the debate ensue. >> >>Constant bellyaching about something people could do something about >>serves no purpose in solving the issue. > > > k. I apologize in advance, the following is only political debate. It > was working, then broken by Mandrake. I don't suppose they did it > without knowing. No, they probably did it without noticing, or realising what effect it would have. Do you expect that Laurent works without kdebase installed on his machine? How else would he *easily* notice that kdebase was required by kdelibs? Isnt the purpose of this list exactly to try and find obscure issues like this that a packager would not find on their own? > I can propose whatever fix I want, they will never even > acknowledge the problem. The fix is very simple, they just don't give a > screw. > So why did you not mail Laurent a patch anyway, if it is so simple. You spent more time writing this mail than I did making a fix for *your* issue (and now I have spent more time replying to your mail also). > When I proposed a patch correcting a BuildReq for kdevelop, it took me 3 > or 4 emails (never answered), 3 bug confirmations and two corrections > (never answered either) to eventually have it applied after 2 months (I > am not even sure this is because of my input since I had to close the > bug myself). But it was fixed? Something like 'Sorry I forgot', 'Yes we saw the problem' > is beyond their ability. All the other packagers try to keep us up to > date and acknowledge our input, are we so dumb that everything we say > about kde is rubbish? Maybe Laurent just tries to spend as much time as possible fixing bugs *in* KDE? He is often listed in KDE changelogs as having fixed *many* bugs. I guess you would prefer a broken KDE that is packaged well instead of a solid KDE with people who cannot hack KDE but can submit packing patches help keep KDE packaging up to scratch? Or are you going to take over Laurents KDE fixing? And maybe there are requirements placed on him by the people who pay his salary ... > > They never answer any question and completely ignore the comments and > suggestions. Then they complain because we don't understand what they > are trying to do. Is it really whining when someone forces me to install > what I estimate to be 30MB of code I will never use. I did not see Laurent holding a gun to your head while you did: # urpmi kdebase I think it was probably an honest mistake/oversight. > Wouldn't it be > worth at least a little debate? What's the point of having cooker if > when I try to state my problem, I receive for answer 'It works for me, > have a good WE'? > > Sure I can start ignoring the deps, but I never had to do so in the past > and I am not surprised that it starts with KDE. I came to linux because > it was modular and organized. What we have here is total contempt for > these concepts (just like blah, blah). Well, does galaxy>0.1-8mdk fix this? > There's no point in arguing and I don't want to beat any horse, even > dead, but I am really disappointed by this unfair attitude; most of all > that it does not change. Sorry again, Yes, it appears there is no point arguing when instead the issue can be dealt with. Maybe next time someone who complains about something will try and fix their own issues (where they can) and provide patches? Buchan - -- |--------------Another happy Mandrake Club member--------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+XQGFrJK6UGDSBKcRAmxDAJ9vkl4p3WnnC+9CFQBx/rqSRPQyeACeKWmn Qqg4X7qBY63oCpJMsiMnLpk= =AvhQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
