Richard Neill wrote:
>
> Götz Waschk wrote:
>
>>2005/12/26, Richard Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>
>>>That seems to me like a bug. PLF should integrate with 2006 official -
>>>so any packages in plf should either
>>> - be built against 2006 official (1)
>>>or
>>> - be in plf-devel (2)
>>>or
>>> - have their dependencies in plf (3)
>>>I'd favour (3), i.e. where a plf package really needs a library which is
>>>newer than the version in 2006 official, the library ought to be
>>>included in PLF.
>>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I disagree, we have the option to backport packages to the stable
>>distributions. PLF should not be the place for packages that could go
>>to contribs instead.
>
>
> I thought official contribs was frozen? Of course if there is a
> backport, I agree it should go into contribs.
official contrib = contrib, by opposition to PLF (unoficial contrib),
not contrib from the official branch.
>
>
>>>I've seen this happen also with gtkpod, which has a dependency on
>>>libgpod which is nowhere to be seen.
>>
>>libgpod is in the contribs for 10.1 10.2 and 2006.0 community. It is
>>written on the plf page, you need the devel contribs.
>
>
> This isn't a good solution.
> [Also, I can't see the reference you mention on the plf website, and
> easyurpmi doesn't handle this either]
>
> It should be possible to get a working system using just the following
> sources:
>
> 2006 - main
> 2006 - contribs
> 2006 - updates
> 2006 - plf-free
> 2006 - plf-nonfree
This is official tree. We're a community-based project, we prefer to
support community tree. And it is also easier for us technically
speaking, as we can provide backports there, while not in the official tree.
--
Mencken's Law
-- H.L. Mencken on Murphy n°5
_______________________________________________
PLF-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
