RPM-based GNOME updating probs (Was: libs problem with gmc-4.1.35-2 rpm for Redhat)

[Jeff Stern <jstern eclectic ss uci edu>]

Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> 
> > I'm wondering if it might be helpful to put a note somewhere?
> > ..to say that current gmc RPM does not work for the current
> > GNOME 0.30 RPM's, so that it would save the next person the same
> > time that I lost trying to figure this out.. :)
> 
> I asked the ftp maintainer to remove the file from there.  I am sorry
> if this caused a lot of grief for you.

No prob.. Appreciate the effort.. Thanks! :)

> Please also note that gmc is fully functionaly provided that you
> update all of your tools from CVS (glib, gtk+, gnome-libs).  Programs
> depending on those might require updating as well.

Okay, thanks.. but I really prefer (at this point) to update via just
rpm's.. i'm not that 'cutting edge', and i'm afraid to screw up my
libraries (they're badly mangled enough as it is.. :)

Is there someone who is specifically maintaining the **RPM-based**
'distributions' of gmc and GNOME, yet?  It would help if there were,
because such a person could coordinate the 'latest stable, working
ensemble'.. you know: a 'release' (even though we're still in beta..)  I
think the problem with some people (like myself) is that because the
files are often offered (albeit by volunteer packagers on the net) via
RPM, we get (correctly or not) the impression that it 'ought to be
easier'.  The RPM's give the impression of a released distribution, even
though it is not to 1.0, yet.

Thus, it appears that really the last stable ***RPM***-based version was
GNOME 0.27, and if someone could coordinate the ***RPM***-based versions
and have an ftp-directory-tree avail just for that, i think that would
accomplish 2 things:

1) It would reduce RPM'ers' (like myself) expectations, and
2) It would reduce the amount of FAQ-email you get.
3) What FAQ email you *did* get from RPM'ers, you could answer easily. 
You could simply refer 
   them to the GNOME-RPM 'coordinator's' home page, and just say, "Hey,
this is the last
   semi-stable release. Anything newer, and you're going to have to
leave RPM and go to CVS."

Right now, I can see no open statement on www.gnome.org specifically
***about RPM versions*** like this.. It would be helpful.

On the other hand, RPM'ers could be more than just 'beta' testers.  They
could still be effective alpha-testers. For instance, if RPM-based
*non-stable* (But still WORKING!!!) distributions were put out, then
RPM'ers could be effective Beta-testers without having to compile the
latest versions, etc.  As long as a non-stable version were put together
which still, for the most-part, 'worked' (no major glib library
API-breaks, for instance), then an RPM'er could download everything in a
single FTP directory was all he/she needed for this particular version. 
Also, he/she would stand forwarned that there would be more bugs than in
the last (relatively) 'stable' version ('stable' directory).  Perhaps
these could be called 'alpha-RPM' and 'beta-RPM' directories, per se. 
In this way, when reporting bugs, the user could simply say, "I
downloaded release 0.2x completely and cleanly installed, and I'm having
this problem." No need to work out which particular unique set of RPM's
they downloaded and figure out some unique problem.

> Best wishes,
> Miguel.

(P.S.- I'm going to risk appearing the goober (impossible, i know! :)
and post this on the list, too, since I saw some posts from other
RPM'ers that seemed to indicate there might be a common sentiment, here,
w/regard to RPM-based GNOME updating.  Hope you don't mind! :)

Once again, thanks for all your help, miguel! :)
jeff.

-- 
                                     "Oh. Never mind!!!"
                                           -Emily Latella