Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3139 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse] 10.1 RC1 to final by updating RPMs?
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:29:40 +0200
- Message-id: <m37izjovsb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:14:22AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > No, you don't. You updated the db package (which is definitely part of the
>>
>> That's a bug ;-(
>
> This is what I am saying for years now but received only really stupid answers
> in response to that like: "We don't consider this a problem for us
> internally".
>
>> We rebuild that often that people often asked: What's the difference
>> between version -9 and -20? And we have to answer: Just rebuild with
>> newer packages. It would be great to only increase the number if a
>
> So what you are basically saying is that you fear that some people ask
> quetions and prefer incorrectness of the system over just answering these
> questions? Didn't expect you to be that reclusive.
I was a bit short: The problem is especially with release products.
Your release today -9 and in a month -20 - with just one change. This
confused a lot of customers and partners, they asked for the other 10
changes...
>
>> dependend package changes the ABI.
>
> Well, until you did implement that just expect _every_ rebuild to result in an
> ABI change. If you expected the ABI not to change you wouldn't need to
> rebuild.
>
>> So, neither solution is really good.
>
> Huh? What is the real _problem_ with just telling the truth that the package
> number increased due to a dependency rebuild?
People just not getting it. :-(. Trust me, this is a real problem.
But it might be different for FACTORY and released products...
>> Could you file a bugreport against basesystem, please? I'll take care
>> of it and discuss with Rudi once he's back from vacation how to
>> finally solve this.
>
> Ok, did so now. Is there also a chance that this discussion will not again
> take place completely behind the curtain without getting any resons for the
> final decision.
Let's try it ;-)
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, aj@xxxxxxx, http://www.suse.de/~aj/
SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:14:22AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > No, you don't. You updated the db package (which is definitely part of the
>>
>> That's a bug ;-(
>
> This is what I am saying for years now but received only really stupid answers
> in response to that like: "We don't consider this a problem for us
> internally".
>
>> We rebuild that often that people often asked: What's the difference
>> between version -9 and -20? And we have to answer: Just rebuild with
>> newer packages. It would be great to only increase the number if a
>
> So what you are basically saying is that you fear that some people ask
> quetions and prefer incorrectness of the system over just answering these
> questions? Didn't expect you to be that reclusive.
I was a bit short: The problem is especially with release products.
Your release today -9 and in a month -20 - with just one change. This
confused a lot of customers and partners, they asked for the other 10
changes...
>
>> dependend package changes the ABI.
>
> Well, until you did implement that just expect _every_ rebuild to result in an
> ABI change. If you expected the ABI not to change you wouldn't need to
> rebuild.
>
>> So, neither solution is really good.
>
> Huh? What is the real _problem_ with just telling the truth that the package
> number increased due to a dependency rebuild?
People just not getting it. :-(. Trust me, this is a real problem.
But it might be different for FACTORY and released products...
>> Could you file a bugreport against basesystem, please? I'll take care
>> of it and discuss with Rudi once he's back from vacation how to
>> finally solve this.
>
> Ok, did so now. Is there also a chance that this discussion will not again
> take place completely behind the curtain without getting any resons for the
> final decision.
Let's try it ;-)
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, aj@xxxxxxx, http://www.suse.de/~aj/
SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
| < Previous | Next > |