On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Per Řyvind Karlsen wrote:
>> Funny how I get no responses on this problem..... It looks pretty familiar
>> to what's being reported on cooker.... hmmm
> I've been occupied with getting the situation for cooker stabilized
> and most crucially, getting
> our buildsystem up and running without new issues.
All of which is qute a cruel a bruising logistical task (been there, done that, many times).
You're doing fine even if I disagree with your check-in's at times.
E.g I'm quite happy to see LOOP: messages exposed even if I privately
wince at the support issues that will inevitably follow if the
output is just inflicted on lusers (the better answer is to pro-actively
nuke as many of the LOOP's as possible to achieve the "watershed" where
its easier to fix the few remaining issues than it is to yell Geronimo! and
wait several more years to fix anything).
There's most definitely triage and hacks and plateaus and more that can
be done to achive forward progress.
> With horrible spaghetti perl code in urpmi, various versions of both
> rpm and URPM used on hosts
> generrating metadata, mess of my own and general stress making the
> situation more painful,
> I'm only now starting to get there..
Yep. And -- just judging from the rising incidence of complaints --
you making good forward progress. Its always most painful just before
> Meanwhile there's nothing preventing you from fixing this yourself
> (I've already told you where and what
> needs fixing), nor anything forcing you to switch to rpm 5.3 (in
> contrast to cooker where I've already forced the change upon
> everyone,making my priorities rather obvious).
> I'll try get smart fixed over the next days..
What is the issue in smart? Is it just a mis-matched Provides: <-> Requires:
dependent on whether ":2010.1" is appended 2 place or none?
73 de Jeff
> Per Řyvind
> RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
> Developer Communication List firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Jan 25 19:32:25 2011