RE: Updated gnome-* RPMs

["Fox, Kevin M" <KMFox mail bhi-erc com>]

Um, I would just like to point out that gnome is designed for ease of use...
Contrary to popular beleef, tarballs are not easy to use. They also take a
great deal of time to do on just one computer let alone several...

I have tryed to submit rpms in the past but have been ignored for the most
part. If you dont want to release rpms please allow someone else to do the
work for you...

I request that before there is a new release of gnome that the tarballs be
tested by afiew people including people who build rpms from them. If you
dont give out rpms, please have working tarballs so that they can be used to
generate rpms. Alot of the tarballs releases have broken specs. I consider
these bugs. Also, whoever is working on building the rpms, they update the
specs so that they can actually build the rpms, but the fixes arnt put back
into cvs so the problems just reapear in the next tarball release. So,
whoever updates the specs, please put it back into cvs...


Most of you would say, just use the tarballs. I hate tarballs for several
good reasons:
1. removal/upgrading is a bitch. There is allways the posibility that
something is left behind.
2. Lots of time wasted. It takes along time to make all the stuff needed...
I dont have hours upon hours to compile stuff... 
3. If you have more then one computer, you have to build it on each computer
taking up huge amounts of time. (I have more then one computer)
4. Not easy. (well, not as easy as rpm -Uvh *)


I understand that you dont want to release rpms. I really dont care about
this. There are 2 things I would like done about this. 

1. I would like to see the tarballs have good specs. Test the tarballs
before release
2. I would like for people contributing rpms to not be ignored.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Gleef [SMTP:dzol@virtual-yellow.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, March 18, 1999 8:39 AM
> To:	rdtzine@concentric.net
> Subject:	Re: Updated gnome-* RPMs
> 
> 
> On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Richard Caldwell wrote:
> > I've said this before and since nobody cares I guess it won't hurt to
> say
> > it again.  It's ridiculous to release RPMs for a bug infested mess like
> > Gnome 1.0 and then not release RPMs for the bug fixes as soon as
> possible.
> 
> I've said this before, and since many people don't seem to hear, I guess
> it won't hurt to say it again.  GNOME DOESN'T RELEASE RPMS.
> 
> The GNOME releases are in tarball form.  People use these tarballs to
> make RPMs, debs, tgzs, whatever they want.  The RPMs that are on our FTP
> site are made by RedHat Labs, according to their own schedule.
> 
> 
> > Are we inflicting some kind of purgatory on users foolish enough to
> > download the first release?
> 
> We aren't trying to, that's why we make bugfix releases like 1.0.3.
> 
> 
> > I was willing to spend some of what little free time I have chasing bugs
> > for this project because I think it's a brilliant piece of work that
> needs
> > a lot of polishing.  Unfortunately I'm wasting all my time dealing with
> the
> > maze of twisty little passages that results from mixing RPMs and
> tarballs.
> 
> If you want to help debug GNOME and stay sane, try using just RPMs for the
> basics (eg. glib, gtk+, imlib, etc.), and tarballs for everything GNOME
> (eg. gnome-libs, libgtop, etc.).  If you use some GNOME RPMs and some
> GNOME tarballs, you will get unpredicable behavior.
> 
>  
> > Fine, whatever.  I'll use what I have and wait for the big "RedHat 6.0
> is
> > ready for the desktop" announcement that seems to be the holy grail of
> this
> > whole project anyway.
> 
> If you think that a RedHat anouncement is the "holy grail of this whole
> project", I suggest you reread the GNOME Manifesto at
> http://www.gnome.org/about/manifesto.shtml
> 
> 
> Best of Luck,
> -Gleef
> 
> 
> -- 
>         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.