* Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:23:13 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > > > Thank you for producing lots of circular dependencies > > (ie. in the Xserver), which make maintenance complicated. > > Lots? If you'd posted this yesterday, I would have been able to recall > the last time I was hit with one.
At least several. I didn't find an good solution for checking the whole tree yet, so I yet know some. Good candidates are where PDEPENDs occour. For example the Xserver. I'm currently in the process of fixing the ebuilds in my overlay. > I did get a circular dependency today, sdl and directfb and guess what? > The error message also contained the solution, which was to temporarily > change a USE flag. *rofl* what a good solution. really clean. gread idea. <snip> > The great thing about free software is that it all comes with a full > money back guarantee. So before you start shooting your mouth off when > something produced by volunteers in their own time fails to work for you, > stop and remember how much you paid for it and why. You don't need to give me lesson on OSS, I've did enough work OSS projects over last 12 years to know how it works. And I'm really tired of trying to talk with learn-resistent devs who clearly expressed that they don't any of my help and told be to stay away from b.g.o. So I'm maintaining my own overlay and concentrate on getting things running instead of wasting time with certain devs. The motivation of this mail is to inform other, probably frustrated, users, that there's more than the official tree. > Since you are clearly able to solve a problem that comes fro upstream > and which the combined might of SUSE and Gentoo has failed to do, Which problem from the upstream ? I'm a little bit involved in Xorg development (especially on the modularizing project), so if you tell me the problem, I could fix it. The problem w/ x11-base/xorg-server are the PDEPENDs on (external) driver packages. I dont see any valid reason for depending the Xserver on drivers, which themselfes depend on the Xserver. If you want some package which pulls in an complete Xserver installation *and* drivers (based on certain useflags), why not just an virtual package ? IMHO, there were days where it had been done so (when PDEPEND did not yet exist). I don't know why this had changed, probably just to get an new feature widely used. (BTW: I do not see any valid reason for PDEPEND anyways) <snip> > why not offer to help instead of posting sarcastic rants to a user > support list? $DEITY forbid, you could even file a bug describing > the problem and providing your solution. I'm tired of trying to help where my help is not wanted. As already said: the devs clearly told me that I'm unwelcomes, so I leave them alone. In fact, I'll provide an solution. It will be published within the OSS-QM project. But I won't waste any second on filing any bug, just for that it's marked invalid by folks like Jakub. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
