[arch-dev-public] firefox 2.0.0.7 package
I am in rant mood again. namcap exists and I think whoever rebuilt firefox has read http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-September/001644.html Yet, firefox still depends on gcc instead of gcc-libs. The goal is to get rid of the gcc dependency, so when a big package is rebuilt, it is a good idea to check if such changes should be applied, as nobody will rebuild them "just for fun". We have been encouraged by Aaron to communicate more, and I think we did in the last couple of days, but this doesn't mean anything if we just ignore what we read.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public- bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Thomas Bächler Verzonden: donderdag 20 september 2007 10:05 Aan: Public mailing list for ArchLinux development Onderwerp: [arch-dev-public] firefox 2.0.0.7 package
I am in rant mood again. namcap exists and I think whoever rebuilt firefox has read http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007- September/001644.html
Yet, firefox still depends on gcc instead of gcc-libs. The goal is to get rid of the gcc dependency, so when a big package is rebuilt, it is a good idea to check if such changes should be applied, as nobody will rebuild them "just for fun".
We have been encouraged by Aaron to communicate more, and I think we did in the last couple of days, but this doesn't mean anything if we just ignore what we read.
Another point is that this update was useless: there's one bug fixed, which only affects the windows and Mac OS X platform because it fixes a security bug in the case when firefox is called from the quicktime player. Since apple didn't make one for linux, it doesn't affect us. So before jumping to a new Xulrunner snapshot: skip that one.
On 9/20/07, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
We have been encouraged by Aaron to communicate more, and I think we did in the last couple of days, but this doesn't mean anything if we just ignore what we read.
Yeah, and it's been great. I now know what's going on in Arch devland! 8) I agree with Thomas' sentiment here, but sometimes we're just forgetful. This isn't a *critical* issue, but it's important. At least this wasn't like udev breakage or something, heh. We're still out of practice with this whole "let people know what's going on" thing, so we might as well get the "oopses" in on the non-critical packages. Thanks for bringing this up, Thomas. It is important that we keep our eyes out for things like this. In the future, I will attempt to send out mini status reports and notifications at the beginning of each week, just to remind us all of things like this. Again, thanks guys, and keep up the good work - Aaron
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On 9/20/07, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
We have been encouraged by Aaron to communicate more, and I think we did in the last couple of days, but this doesn't mean anything if we just ignore what we read.
Yeah, and it's been great. I now know what's going on in Arch devland!
8)
I agree with Thomas' sentiment here, but sometimes we're just forgetful. This isn't a *critical* issue, but it's important.
One other thing I've realized lately is that someone assigned to take an email thread and keep track of what is decided in an organized form (like a wiki page) is essential to effective group understanding. It's possible to miss or forget things that go by on a mailing list, especially when they're buried in long discussions, and it's really helpful to have a wiki page per project and someone diligently updating it after discussions. This isn't easy, it's not perfect, and I'm not suggesting that anyone volunteer for such a job en masse.. lots of work. But let's remember that a concise summary of the outcome of a discussion will communicate more successfully to more people than if those people have to read the mailing list to figure out what happened. - P
participants (4)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Jan de Groot
-
Paul Mattal
-
Thomas Bächler