Just some frustration venting mostly, but Core dev's have a ways to go before "their" packages will ever come close to Extras quality, especially when they ignore good/valid suggestions and the very helpful stuff on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
Case in point: openobex: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/186457 (*) marked INVALID rpm: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/145978 marked WONTFIX (rpm-devel's Requires: have been broken for a *very* long time)
Nice, huh?
Hopefully, the same won't happen to the other openobex packaging bugs/suggestions I reported yesterday: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/186458 http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/186460 http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/186463 (*)
OK, I feel better now.
(*) which can cause kdebluetooth (see bug #186452) to fail to build (especially outside of mock) on fc5.
-- Rex
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 07:02 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Just some frustration venting mostly, but Core dev's have a ways to go before "their" packages will ever come close to Extras quality, especially when they ignore good/valid suggestions and the very helpful stuff on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
So we're moving to something internally that is built around mock, which should have a huge hand in cleaning up a lot of bad packages, wrt BuildReqs and such. We're also talking about pushing forward w/ a packaging guideline that models (or IS) the Extras guidelines. We're working to improve this situation.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org