Le 24 févr. 2006 à 09:53, Daniel Macks a écrit :
I think the contrary, if obviously a package does not work properly, either it has not to be put in fink and bug reported to gnome, or it has to be patched so that it works and also the bug be reported to gnome.But seriously, we can't require of ourselves a higher level of quality than the uptream authors
. It seems unlikely that an upstream package would have gone through a whole unstable branch series then a new stable series and have serious upgrade breakage or interface incompatibilities. So if they say "it's compatible", it's been tested by them (these versions are already several months old), and we don't find any problems in some basic testing and usage, that sounds to me like it's ready to release.
See for example: <http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326071>
Fink has tried to coordinate
not very hard though.
a full gnome2.x suite in exp/ and fully test all its interactions before releasing it.
The issue here is just a missing BuildDepends.
But how can it be?:-)
That's the problem here. As long as gnome would not be considered in fink as some monolithic system like kde, it's likely not to work properly.Stuff like that happens all the time, and gets fixed as soon as someone on a system without [whatever package] recognizes it problem. Or when someone discovers some sepcific combination os packages that triggers some weird interaction, for example, recent issues of libgnome2 + gnome-libs.
Well, I've already said it so much times, it is probably useless that I say it another time.
Cheers, Michèle <http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>
36C471DED4B09EEB30A0281F2608DB2FE6F9E147.gpgkey
Description: Binary data
