on 10/28/2007 12:44 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > David Boles wrote: >> Joe Package-builder builds a newer version of something with >> improvements or bug fixes. Then tests it on his machine and then >> puts it in Updates-testing. Which few, if any, use. So it does not >> get tested very well. > > I don't think you give the updates-testing repo the credit it > deserves. More than a few people use it. And it does catch real > problems before they hit the stable updates repo. > >> Question? Why is that the exclusive fault of the person who supplied >> the package? >> >> Why did you not get involved before now? Or is it just easier to >> complain after the fact? > > You should check your facts before you imply this. Michael does a lot > of work to keep the repositories and updates sane, looking out for > broken upgrade paths and other important details that other packagers > often overlook. As for the Updates-Testing. I know nothing of it really other than many messages complaining *after* something is released and the package maintainers, many of them, asking 'why did you not try it?' or something to that effect. What I meant, and said incorrectly evidently, was that not enough people have the interest in doing the testing but then blindly download/install packages that 'break' their machine. A little research and a little knowledge goes a long way towards avoiding this situations. But perhaps you are correct here. I am not at all familiar with whatever the current release of Fedora is or how it works. My main machine runs Rawhide current as of today. Updated daily. And has since the Rawhide development cycle that became Fedora Core 3. I do not use any third party packages of any kind. Video. Audio. Nothing. Straight whatever Fedora (Rawhide) provides. The last time my system 'broke' was during the development of what is now Fedora Core 6. And that was *my* fault because I did not read the daily report. What caused my problem was in the report. If I had read it and waited a day it would not have happened at all. So? One last point. The name "Michael" is not familiar to me because of what I wrote above this. If he is an asset to the community I tip my hat. -- David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
