Hey,
On 19.06.2016 21:36, Richard Brown wrote:
UNTESTED and NOT SUPPORTED by the openSUSE Project (yet)
You seem to misunderstand our relationship.
Packman does not follow openSUSEs definition of tested and supported.
The whole reason we have started this repo is because we don't :-)
This thread has the wrong subject.
I think this is a proposal for a new Packman model.
Rolling release Packman and stable Packman, because ATM it is
impossible to have both but maybe Richard can help to get this done.
Meanwhile we do the best we can to make Packman as stable as possible.
Regards
Le lun. 20 juin 2016 à 09:45, Olaf Hering a écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 20, Frederic Crozat wrote:
>
> > You seem to forget the entire mess it created for Packman users when
> ffmpeg
> > 3 became the "default" ffmpeg in Packman.
>
> What mess was that? Likely just the build breakage
On Mon, Jun 20, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> You seem to forget the entire mess it created for Packman users when ffmpeg
> 3 became the "default" ffmpeg in Packman.
What mess was that? Likely just the build breakage caused by the API
change.
I think we should try to _link
Le lun. 20 juin 2016 à 08:29, Dave Plater a écrit :
> On 6/19/16, Richard Brown wrote:
> > On 19 June 2016 at 16:41, Dave Plater wrote:
> >>> The pkg in multimedia:libs is about one hundred, thousand, million
> >>> times
Mandag den 20. juni 2016 06:22:35 skrev Olaf Hering:
> There is always a tradeoff between "wanting the latest" and "just wand
> the codecs". The latter could be tested for 42.2 by creating a few
> 42.2_ (gstreamer*, ffmpeg) which link to OBS:42.2:Update.
Olaf, to be honest I think most people
On 6/19/16, Richard Brown wrote:
> On 19 June 2016 at 16:41, Dave Plater wrote:
>>> The pkg in multimedia:libs is about one hundred, thousand, million
>>> times more at risk of being broken than the pkg in Factory
>>
>> Not if it's well maintained
>
On Sun, Jun 19, Richard Brown wrote:
> On 19 June 2016 at 16:41, Dave Plater wrote:
> >> The pkg in multimedia:libs is about one hundred, thousand, million
> >> times more at risk of being broken than the pkg in Factory
> >
> > Not if it's well maintained
>
> There is _NO
On 19 June 2016 at 16:41, Dave Plater wrote:
>> The pkg in multimedia:libs is about one hundred, thousand, million
>> times more at risk of being broken than the pkg in Factory
>
> Not if it's well maintained
There is _NO SUCH THING_ as a well maintained Devel Project.
On 6/19/16, Richard Brown wrote:
> On 19 June 2016 at 11:53, Olaf Hering wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, Bjørn Lie wrote:
>>
>>> Packman would be better of with link to the factory sources instead of
>>> straight from the devel one in m:l.
>>
>> This does not
On 19 June 2016 at 11:53, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, Bjørn Lie wrote:
>
>> Packman would be better of with link to the factory sources instead of
>> straight from the devel one in m:l.
>
> This does not help much. If the pkg in Factory gets broken for whatever
> reason
On Thu, Jun 16, Bjørn Lie wrote:
> Packman would be better of with link to the factory sources instead of
> straight from the devel one in m:l.
This does not help much. If the pkg in Factory gets broken for whatever
reason it will take weeks until the error is resolved.
Olaf
Am Donnerstag 16 Juni 2016, 15:00:03 schrieb Olaf Hering:
> On Thu, Jun 16, Mathias Homann wrote:
> > I'm getting the full load of gstreamer packages (and dependecies) as
> > updates almost every day, is it REALLY necessary to rebuild gstreamer
> > that often?
> Likely yes.
> What exactly changes?
On Thu, Jun 16, Mathias Homann wrote:
> I'm getting the full load of gstreamer packages (and dependecies) as updates
> almost every day, is it REALLY necessary to rebuild gstreamer that often?
Likely yes.
What exactly changes? Usually each package is named like
name-version-release, and the
14 matches
Mail list logo