At Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:21:22 +0100, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Robert Bruce Findler wrote:
> []
> > Setting up glib (1.2.10-8) ...
> > install-info: unrecognized option `--infodir=/sw/share/info'
> > Try `install-info --help' for a complete list of options.
> > dpkg: error processing glib (--
Robert Bruce Findler wrote:
[]
Setting up glib (1.2.10-8) ...
install-info: unrecognized option `--infodir=/sw/share/info'
Try `install-info --help' for a complete list of options.
dpkg: error processing glib (--configure):
subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Is there any way the Fink community could woo Christof back into the
community? It sounds like he could contribute as well as the many other
awesome people here who have contributed kindly.
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 12:28 PM, Philip Ershler wrote:
Just so fink users who may not have be
At Tue, 17 Dec 2002 17:30:24 -0500, "David R. Morrison" wrote:
> I'm not sure what kind of automated testing you have in mind.
I was thinking of your questions 1 and 2, to start. Question 4 would
seem like it should be something that the developer of the package
could help with (ie, by providing a
> I guess such kind of bogus requests/comments/complaints would
> better be
> managed OUTSIDE the core development team, if possible. But
> to do that,
> each team must have volunteer customer service staff who
> mediate users
> and developers, as long as the can talk to each other. I
> don'
Yes, ideally the way we should build the binary distribution is to uninstall
everything before each run -- that would help to detect dependency problems.
The 0.4.1 and 0.5.0 distributions were each built by a single person (me)
running on a G4 iMac, and I simply didn't have (or take) the time to do
On Tuesday, Dec 17, 2002, at 14:13 US/Pacific, Robert Bruce Findler
wrote:
Well, perhaps this isn't the place, but I was curious if the fink
developers have tried to build automated test suites to help with these
kinds of things and if they've encountered any noteworthy successes or
failures. I,
It is unreasonable to expect Open source developers to test a
particular environment other than the development environment. That
would be our job as testers. We serve each other.
Exactly, and if you're aware of this, you can hardly describe a release
"premature". Maybe, the whole problem is ju
Just so fink users who may not have been around forever may be aware,
this is not an unimportant issue. As those of us who have been around
from the beginning certainly remember, one of the earliest driving
forces in the fink project was a fellow named Christof. As far as I
know it was his visi
I'm not sure what kind of automated testing you have in mind.
Of course, a Fink developer who commits a package to CVS has checked that
it compiles on his/her own machine. There are several levels of further
testing that can be imagined:
Question 1: Are there hidden dependencies... things whic
Well, perhaps this isn't the place, but I was curious if the fink
developers have tried to build automated test suites to help with these
kinds of things and if they've encountered any noteworthy successes or
failures. I, for one, would like to learn from these experiences, or
possibly investigate
I think you misunderstood my message. I'm not concerned at all about the
operation of fink and/or its testing. I'm deeply concerned about how
rude fink consumers can be to the fink developers and maintainers. It
just seems like every so often fink users (maybe new arrived fink users)
have to be
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 10:27 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
Eric Salathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The fact of the matter is that OS X Macs are quite arguably the best
desktop unix sustems available. However, Apple has contributed only
part way to that status, and Fink the rest. If
Eric Salathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> An update was posted prematurely -- it turned out to be unusable to
> your existing user base. The web page and README persist in referencing
> misleading material and in suggesting there is a usable update. Really
> now, does the comment "shortc
Robert Bruce Findler wrote:
At Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:09:22 -0700, Phil Ershler wrote:
It seems like about every six months I have to send this same
message. [ ... ]
I wonder, as you re-write this message every six months, if you can
think of anything that might help avoid having to send it?
I'm sorry that my remarks have been taken as pointless bitching, as I
decidedly did not intend them to be taken that way. Hopefully, a
careful, unemotional reading will reveal such. The very logic of my
remarks depends upon a high regard for the project. I believe the
content is there even if t
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 04:09 pm, Phil Ershler wrote:
With my apologies to fink contributors for other's rudeness,
There has so far been no rudeness, so far as I can see. Everyone has
conducted herself entirely properly.
Mac users are a demanding lot. They demand to have everything
At Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:09:22 -0700, Phil Ershler wrote:
> It seems like about every six months I have to send this same
> message. [ ... ]
I wonder, as you re-write this message every six months, if you can
think of anything that might help avoid having to send it?
Would better testing help? Is
It seems like about every six months I have to send this same message.
The people that put their own time and effort in to the fink project do
it completely out of the goodness of their hearts. It has been a
spectacular success. If there have been problems it's unfortunate but
crap happens. Th
On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 02:24 AM, Roger Wong wrote:
I wrote a message here a couple of days ago about how poorly
documented most
UNIX apps are. I said that most of the man pages were written by
developers
for developers. In my opinion, that attitude is outdated and elitist.
Writing
> His post was not particularly helpful either, IMO. We know the upgrade
> situation is bad and don't really need people bitching at us about it,
> really. There was nothing that helped me as a fink developer in his
> post. Other than to make me understand why ChrisP quit working on fink
> last yea
Upgrade fever is hardly the problem here, since OS X 10.2 is a
significant improvment in quality over OS X 10.1 and this is the first
announced, stable release of fink for OS X 10.2.
If so, what is the REAL problem, I wonder? Interpretation of "stable"?
As much as I like fink and hate to see if
Upgrade fever is hardly the problem here, since OS X 10.2 is a
significant improvment in quality over OS X 10.1 and this is the first
announced, stable release of fink for OS X 10.2.
;; --
As much as I like fink and hate to see if being bashed, I believe that
this attitude:
> For whaterver kin
On Monday, Dec 16, 2002, at 18:10 US/Pacific, Brad Cox wrote:
At 05:40 PM -0800 12/16/02, Ben Hines wrote:
Eric: you are welcome to your money back.
That's hardly a helpful response. This just sends the message that
free means its not worth having and might even damage your system as
apparen
The upgrade worked fine for me. I'm happy! Don't quit, please :-)
simon
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 09:16 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
His post was not particularly helpful either, IMO. We know the upgrade
situation is bad and don't really need people bitching at us about it,
really. There was
I'm not a member of the development team, but I think your complaint is
totally pointless. If you CRITICALLY rely on softwares developed and
distributed in forms like the fink environment, you just need to be
more cautious and careful in updating, don't you? For example, you
could, and still ca
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 06:10 PM, Brad Cox wrote:
At 05:40 PM -0800 12/16/02, Ben Hines wrote:
Eric: you are welcome to your money back.
That's hardly a helpful response. This just sends the message that
free means its not worth having and might even damage your system as
apparent
At 05:40 PM -0800 12/16/02, Ben Hines wrote:
Eric: you are welcome to your money back.
That's hardly a helpful response. This just sends the message that
free means its not worth having and might even damage your system as
apparently happened in this case. The same thing happened to me but I
On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 04:39 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
Should we have pulled the distribution when we realized that there was
trouble with the upgrade matrix?
No.
Or is the note about this on the webpage
enough?
Yes. Users can always just wait for us to fix the upgrade matrix
I write in response to the user who complained about the premature release
of 0.5.0a, with a question for other Fink users to help guide the Fink team
in future decision-making.
Should we have pulled the distribution when we realized that there was
trouble with the upgrade matrix? Or is the note
I'm pleased to see the new update of Fink for OS X 10.2 and appreciate
the effort that went into it. However, I really need to say that it is
a disservice to the project to have released it prematurely. Fink
provides tools critical to many people's professional work and a
certain degree of conf
31 matches
Mail list logo
