Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3893 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] Smart failes to upgrade amarok
  • From: "Dominique Leuenberger" <Dominique.Leuenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:47:46 +0100
  • Message-id: <459BB402020000290000024C@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>>> Reply on 03-01-2007 13:40:55 <<<
> > Just because something is not comming from packman and/or guru
> > Mean it is not an RPM for SUSE Linux.
> That's absolutely not what I meant.

Ok, I maybe, but it was the way it was readable from your mail. I
appologize for this then.

> The point is that the mad library used to be packaged as "mad" on
> (until SUSE 9.2) and that it is a rather well-known fact that
> provides that package already -- at least to somewhat more
> SUSE users.

so: once wrong, always wrong? Probably the easiest to solve this
conflict is to add a Provides: mad to the package at

> Experienced SUSE packagers (some people from the Packman project)
> already package vlc and its dependencies for SUSE Linux, so why not
> just
> reference that repository on the videolan website.

As I wrote in the previous post, the link WAS there, with the comment
they looked for an 'own' packager. By investigating it came out that
they tried to 'cooperate' with DQ, but apparently had some
'communication problems'. I can't tell you the whole story, as I don't
know it... but if you want I'm sure I can figure it out for you.

> > So: start looking further than your nose. And help users in a
> > constructive way. Not everybody wants to have their system killed /
> an
> > unsupported way by adding a repo that replaces system libs (like
> > for example). There are users that would like to stay on the
> 'supported'
> > level.
> Uh, well, it's your choice whether you upgrade alsa or not.

Yes: for me it's not a problem. I can download the few RPMs I want from
the website and install them. The avarage user adds the repos, sees:
'uh.. a bunch of updates... newer = better so let's install'.. and only
later he runs in a problem and will NEVER be able to associate it to the
fact of a PM package.. there were even already some threads on the ML
regarding such packages.

> Well that's one thing. But IMO the right approach would have been to
> discuss it properly with the Packman team to see what the most
> appropriate solution would be.
> It would certainly make more sense to just copy the relevant Packman
> RPMs into a separate repository at instead of building
> packages from scratch again -- especially when they conflict with
> most used community package repository.

The solution of packaging on their own is probably to better suit the
needs / demands of the users in the IRC, ML and Forum. Now they can say:
this feature is missing? We tell OUR packager to fix it. Before they
could just say: Somebody packaged it and we can try to get in touch with
him. what do you think do users favour?

Cheers & Prosit Neujahr!
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups