Well said Chris. I'm with you 100%. Keep the faith...you're doing a great
job. Since following your directions to the letter I no longer have any
troubles with my machine and I thank you.
--
Mark
"If you don't share your concepts and ideals, they end up being worthless,"
"Sharing is what makes them powerful."
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Christopher Molnar wrote:
> Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:46:18 -0500
> From: Christopher Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [expert] kcontrol STILL doesn't function
>
> #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? :)
>
>
