On 14.06.2012 14:50, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar wrote:
Bringing that example around though: how long would you want to give anything else time to integrate? I had the feeling that a few people did
Can't say, depends on how important it is (importance raises of course if a lot of work was put into it).
a LOT of fixing for GCC 4.7 before it got pushed. Yes, zypp/libzypp was not fixed by the same team: the zypp code is not the 'clearest' base to start working on.. sadly. Zypp being at the 'heart' of course is important, but should also be 'good code'.
The problem with zypp was surely not that it was bad code, but the problem the gcc update caused was very complicated. And such problems we will always face, one way or the other - that what makes integration work of a distribution. And you *do* need experts to fix these problems. But that shouldn't be an excuse not to try.
If any leaf package would have had the same trouble as zypp, it would very likely just be dropped.
It happened in the past, yes.
Shouldn't we be able to turn around here and ask: why is it that zypp can't be fixed to work with gcc 4.7? Why does it take SO long for one of the most central pieces of 'own code' to be fixed?
Because C++ sucks, that's about the full story :)
Which leads almost immediately to the question: Can the openSUSE Community sustain a piece of code like zypp/libzypp/satsolver?
It's maintained by SUSE and from what I can say, SUSE fixed the problem. I would have just preferred if this fixing happened as a side project instead of having a broken zypper for so long. The question is if this is realistic - if SUSE would have put so much effort into it if it wasn't already broken in factory. And this applies to all maintainers of all components. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org