On 3/30/07, Anssi Hannula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan van der Eijk wrote: > > On 3/30/07, Anssi Hannula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Few days ago AMD released the version 8.35.5. The biggest change is the > >> completely new AMD Catalyst Control Center Linux Edition (amdcccle). > >> > >> However, there is one major stepback regarding the PLF packaging of the > >> new driver. The Control Center is only provided as a 32-bit binary and > >> the source code is not provided. The previous ATI Control Panel was > >> distributed with source code, so the x86_64 binary could be compiled > >> while building the package. > >> > >> As the packaging policy > > > > pl-ease! I find many of these policies rather hypocrite and > > inconsistent. I really wouldn't mind if you go ahead and package it so > > it just works. You also have my blessing to use > > an "incoherent-version-in-changelog", a "invalid-build-requires" and a > > "not-standard-release-extension", or all at the same time. > > Er.. with the "packaging policy" I just mean the way I have been > packaging the ati and nvidia packages so far.
OK... fair. Perhaps just refrain from using the word "policy" when you're not talking about a policy. Perhaps "packaging best practices I've applied for these packages" would better describe it. > > IMHO it's the user-experience that counts. > > I agree, and that is why I posted this RFC. I'm asking how to modify my > "ATI packaging policy" so that I can update the ATI driver package. You're asking us if it's OK to bend the rules on your own best practices? Interesting. You don't need to ask permission to breathe out. At least, not from me. _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
