Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-buildservice (227 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-buildservice] Reworking the software search, part II
On 18.03.2012 19:08, Lars Müller wrote:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 06:49:11PM +0100, Martin Seidler wrote:
Am 18.03.2012 16:35, schrieb Lars Müller:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 03:45:35PM +0100, Martin Seidler wrote:
[ 8< ]
Messing the screen up should be avoided. The layout must stay as simple
als possible.
As written I would like the layout a switch back to the current
layout for the community and home or at least for home repositories.

And why "must" the layout be so simple
for community and home repositories
if they are so 'dangerous'/"probably not tested by anyone"?

For community amd home repositories it can't be ugly and unusable
enough. Any additional warning signs not to use them I count as an
advantage. ;)

Honestly my main concern had been we mess up the output for the most
important uses cases. As such I count our default search in standard
and update repositories. These output for these I don't like to see
getting cluttered up.

Atm you have these extra steps to get to an unmaintained package:

- click on "Show other versions"
- click on your distribution
- click on "Show unsupported packages"
- click on "continue" in the warning popup

Isn't that enough?

I'm sure Tom will balance these conflicting interests well.

[ 8< ]
So Ralph DeWitt
from
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2012-03/msg00676.html and following
with

and
uname -a
Linux linux-x9yw 3.1.9-1.4-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jan 27 08:55:10
UTC 2012 (efb5ff4) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

would probably be able to use the
r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2-7.1.x86_64.rpm
as the ABI (here probably: Application binary interface)
has not changed
from
kernel desktop x86_64 3.1.0_1.2-7.1
to
kernel desktop x86_64 3.1.9-1.4
if he trusts the work of the user "TheTiger"
from
https://build.opensuse.org/home?user=TheTiger
(and especially the newest package "Updated at: 2012-03-18
18:39:02+01:00"/"...3.1.0_1.2-7.1...")?

If so thanks for the clarification and education.

Maybe a information/stamp like
"version probably fitting to ...
... openSUSE 12.1 updates from 2012-03-17 0:03:02 ..."/
... current update status..."
"up to date....

...(but not tested)"
could be part of "as simple as possible"
(and avoid further questions/confusion like cited above and mine)?

Sounds like a valid approach to me. Maybe Tom needs to check back with
a Linux kernel developer.

I think we are getting into an area here that is only interesting for 0.1% of
the
software search users. So I won't integrate Kernel ABI compatibility tests
right now,
but the code is open for patches ;-)

Greetings

--
Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org)
openSUSE Boosters Team
"Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >