Stefan van der Eijk wrote: > 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.
Yeah. >>> 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? I'm not asking if it is OK, but just how exactly should I bend them ;) > Interesting. > > You don't need to ask permission to breathe out. At least, not from me. -- Anssi Hannula _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
