Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (798 mails)

[Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 11:37:10AM +0100, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
> 2011/2/20 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx>:
> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 01:28:48PM -0500, todd rme wrote:
> > > I would think they could add tumbleweed as a build target for these,
> > > just like the ones you listed are now.
> >
> > No, and that is one of the main reasons why I don't want to have
> > Tumbleweed be a stand-alone "product" or "release".  To require this
> > would add even more work to our packagers, and I do not want to do that
> > at all.
>
> At some point it will be needed anyway.
> If I build against <latest_stable> and Factory I will find that my
> package doesn't works in Tumbleweed because
> - The <latest_stable> one compiles against an old version of a library
> that changed soname in Tumbleweed
> - The Factory one references a symbol that is not available in the
> library version from Tumbleweed
>
> Which version do you recommend to use with Tumbleweed? <latest_stable>
> or Factory?

First off, why are you building packages against Tumbleweed?  When you
want something updated, it's because it already is working in Factory,
right?  Then you ask me to link it in, I test it out in
openSUSE:Tumbleweed:Testing, if it builds properly, then I move it to
openSUSE:Tumbleweed.

Your example of a library issue, would have been caught when I tested
it, and I would get back to you asking if I should update the library,
or what else to do.

Or you can build against Tumbleweed if you want, but again, it's not
really a big deal, no matter how it's set up you would have this exact
same issue.

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx