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,
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
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org