#1 - the unsupported are not built with cooker. I am starting to suspect this
is the problem with a lot of the problems. They are also not built for cooker.
#2 - people do not follow directions. Every person who has followed the
directions step by step, not tried to rebuild part of the systems, move
menus, etc has not had any problems. There are also a lot of people who are
mixing Cooker and 7.2 still, after repeated explanations.
#3 - you say there is not any real difference between the Unsupported and the
cooker version, actually there is. First, I do not build the unsupported
version on Mandrake machines. I build on a personal laptop, wherever in the
world I happen to be traveling. For example, today I am Berkeley, CA. This
means that Mandrake does not know what is on my machine so they can not
support the RPMs.
Further, I have removed a LARGE number of patches and am using way more
current CVS code for all of my RPM's than you will find in cooker. It is not
the same SRPM that has been rebuilt. I check out changes as the build script
runs.
I do not advise going to the new glibc, I differ in the opinion of my
employers with this (ok, I am now going to get shot) I think that the
developers of gcc have a reason for advising us not to use the latest
development version in a distro. The KDE team has said NOT to use the new
version to compile kde in a distro, again so I do not.
You mention attitude and tone. I am not paid to make these RPM's, I am not
paid to consistantly fix peoples broken systems. I think you would probably
get a little tired of 100 emails saying that I caused their systems to die
after I have seen a lot of other people install by following the directions,
which most people never read.
In retrospect I should never have asked for and encouraged the unsupported
directory, as I think it is causing more problems than it is worth.
-Chris
On Sunday 04 February 2001 11:21, you wrote:
> "They" full well know what unsupported means. It is OFFICIALLY not
> supported. Why? Is it because there is any REAL difference between the
> SUPPORTED version (in OFFICIAL cooker) and the "unsupported" versions for
> 7.2? NO. No difference. The only real difference is the former is built
> from glibc2.2 while the latter is built with glibc2.1. Big deal.
>
> For all PRACTICAL purposes, they are identical. This is proven true by the
> fact that if you download the straight source from KDE rather than from
> Mandrake sources, it does not say you MUST use glibc2.2. Many other
> distros that are making use of the latest KDE are NOT using glibc2.2 (yet).
>
> Get off your snide, sarcastic platform. Complaint or criticism IS valid,
> regardless. How would you EVER know of any problem if no one did this? As
> for tone, when repeated and repeated questions or posts of problems
> concerning what should be a VERY simple problem and answer go unanswered
> repeatedly, then I would say tone has every right to change.
>
> Get over it.
>
> On Sunday 04 February 2001 05:41, Mark Weaver wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > Maybe you should change the name of "unsupported" to "bleeding-edge".
> > They might get the idea then, do ya think? :)
