2011/2/21 Greg KH
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 11:37:10AM +0100, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
2011/2/20 Greg KH
: 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
and Factory I will find that my package doesn't works in Tumbleweed because - The 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?
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.
When Hans asked about "the add-on repo's of the OBS" I wasn't thinking
about "backport repos". I was thinking about those packages that
aren't in Factory, so probably neither in Tumbleweed. Most from the
games repository fall in this category. Another question would be why
those packages aren't in Factory... But anyway OK, we were just
talking about different things.
What I'm still worried about is the
-