Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

I'm no user of jabberd so I don't care to much in that special case.

The issue I see with such things (dropping from distribution and maintaining in buildservice only) is a quality one.

Generally a package from the official distribution is trusted because it maintains a certain quality standard (in most cases) because it is (should be) more tested from Novell and the community in theory while that might be not true for every single package.

There are for sure packages in the buildservice which meet the same quality standard and testing level but at the moment there is no way to know that for the normal user.

I agree however, having some fast evolving project in distribution may also be very painfull and time-demanding as we have to provide (i.e. backport) security bugfixes for product lifetime (currently 2y for OpenSuSE) - not that I strictly refuse want to do that, yet it's an add-on which isn't used very often. Best regards Petr --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Stanislav Brabec wrote:

Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

...

Generally a package from the official distribution is trusted because it maintains a certain quality standard (in most cases) because it is (should be) more tested from Novell and the community in theory while that might be not true for every single package.

Well. I could raise the same question for gimp-unstable.

People who want stable GIMP will use gimp.

Adventurous people would want to use latest gimp-unstable. Official release cannot provide it.

gimp-unstable: IMHO that one is easier. Providing a moving target via the distribution is not the best idea and moving that to the buildservice is perfectly fine given that there is at least one (stable) gimp package on it. In the jabberd example there is no replacement or stable version. General thoughts: But still my concerns above are still valid. I have a similar problem with the mozilla repo in the buildservice while I _think_ it's a bit accepted in the community. But since it moved from ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla to the buildservice it lost some of the trust although nothing really changed. The rating stuff in the buildservice also doesn't work out (yet maybe). I know that only buildservice users can rate projects and packages at the moment but given that I'm the only one! rated the mozilla project at all I wonder if it's just bad or people don't care. Wolfgang --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, Aug 09, Michel Salim wrote:

It is quite bad, in that it does not integrate well with some packages from stock openSUSE-10.2.

I have to admit I don't quite get why an epiphany user should be interested in updating Mozilla packages. What would be the reason to do so? If an epiphany user is interested in using a newer epiphany version, I'd expect that user to look for a repository with epiphany updates, not for one with Mozilla updates. I personally use the packages from mozilla project (Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey) and am very happy with them. -Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, Aug 08, Hubert Figuiere wrote:

On SLED, updating Epiphany through the GNOME:Stable repository requires updating xulrunner through the Mozilla repository.

Where is the SLED repo for GNOME:Stable that you are referring to? I don't see one, so I still fail to see where the issue with the Mozilla repo is. If you are using openSUSE 10.1 packages on SLED, and some dep there can only be resolved by using packages from other repos, I'd say that's more an issue of GNOME:Stable, not of the Mozilla repo (ignoring whether using the 10.1 repo is supported on SLED at all). -Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Daniel Rahn píše v St 08. 08. 2007 v 21:22 +0200:

On Wed, Aug 08, Hubert Figuiere wrote:

...

On SLED, updating Epiphany through the GNOME:Stable repository requires updating xulrunner through the Mozilla repository.

Where is the SLED repo for GNOME:Stable that you are referring to? I don't see one, so I still fail to see where the issue with the Mozilla repo is.

If you are using openSUSE 10.1 packages on SLED, and some dep there can only be resolved by using packages from other repos, I'd say that's more an issue of GNOME:Stable, not of the Mozilla repo (ignoring whether using the 10.1 repo is supported on SLED at all).

This is a feature of the 10.1 repository, not a bug. Both GNOME:*STABLE projects for SUSE_Linux_10.1 are based on mozilla/SUSE_Linux_10.1 repository. It was done to prevent duplication of work with mozilla updates. -- Best Regards / S pozdravem, Stanislav Brabec software developer --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s. r. o. e-mail: sbrabec@suse.cz Lihovarská 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 966 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Michel Salim wrote:

On 06/08/2007, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

...

The rating stuff in the buildservice also doesn't work out (yet maybe). I know that only buildservice users can rate projects and packages at the moment but given that I'm the only one! rated the mozilla project at all I wonder if it's just bad or people don't care.

It is quite bad, in that it does not integrate well with some packages from stock openSUSE-10.2. For instance, epiphany depends on a certain version of mozilla-xulrunner181, so Mozilla's newer version breaks upgrades for epiphany users.

Hmm, sorry that it doesn't make sense to keep a wrong version number :-( Epiphany is hardcoded to require mozilla-xulrunner181 = 1.8.0.99 what is plain wrong and a bug in the epiphany package. But thanks for the report since I can try to workaround this problem. Wolfgang --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 at 14:23, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

i think it would be good to have at least one jabber server in the distribution.

The problem with jabberd is at the moment, that 2.0s11 is so old and lacks so many recent features, that probably nobody who seriously runs a jabber server would want to use it. OTOH, the new development team which started working on jabberd around the turn of the year is following a very agressive "release early, release often" policy (12 releases in 2007, 6 alone in July), which is not really compatible with the release cycle of the distribution. So, the options are: 1. Keep an old release, wich probably nobody will use. 2. Go with the most recent version of a currently rapidly moving target, which will probably be outdated even before 10.3 gets released, and have to maintain it for the next two years. 3. Maintain jabberd in the build service, where we cal always offer the latest version, so that users can immediately take advantage of the upstream development. My vote as somebody who runs a jabber server goes to option 3, so that I can put my effort into the official version of the package instead of maintaining my own copy. cu Reinhard --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org