[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] WICD, up for grabs

[Grigorios Bouzakis]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 01:04:03PM +0100, Angel Velásquez wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:43:44AM +0100, Angel Velásquez wrote:
> >>
> >> This thread is started by Eduardo 'kensai' who told that WICD is up
> >> for grabs, he wrote that in arch-dev-public, and since no-dev seemed
> >> interested, I replied in this list, is that a crime?.
> >>
> > No, but you replied to a discussion which started about a month ago, to
> > a different mailing list, without including the text you are replying to,
> > which is confusing.
> 
> Pal, trust me I didn't replied today, I replied ONE month ago (in
> other list because I don't have access in arch-dev-public, btw I asked
> for the access for situations like this... ), and I in fact quote it,
> see it with your own eyes here:
> 
> http://www.nabble.com/Re:--arch-dev-public--WICD,-up-for-grabs-td20865188.html
> 
> (as you can see too, nobody replied in arch-dev-public and neither in
> arch-general)
> 

Lets not make a big deal out of this. This is mailing list.
Please, when you are replying to something include the text you are replying to
so people can undestand what you are talking about

> >
> >> And btw, isn't a community an official repo?, because several used
> >> apps are in community.
> >>
> > Noone can answer that with 100% accuracy. What does official mean?
> > Does it mean that during updates of eg. python, the packages get rebuilt
> > along with the ones in core and extra? Then no its not.
> > Does official mean, its enabled in /etc/pacman.conf? Then yes it is.
> >
> 
> Well, when python2.6 was released, yes we had to rebuilt stuff, like
> core or extra, so at least some of "official" community have.
>

OK. Another example. Python involves huge amounts of package rebuilds.
The most recent one. libpcap.
Brain0 sent mails to rebuild all packages depending on libpcap twice in
aur-general.
Dec 3:
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-December/003046.html
Dec 11:
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-December/003202.html

You are welcome to check how many bug reports for packages in community
are not working today, 1 month later here:
http://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageDetails;package=150
under "wird benötigt von". Thats very official indeed...

PS, another hug to Sergej for rebuilding ALL of his packages :)

> And now that you mention this, I'd like to add that some packages on
> extra depends of packages in community (see
> http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2009-January/009692.html
> ) if community isn't an official repo, those dependencies should be in
> extra too, even by *hierarchy* (don't know if it's correctly written)
> these dependencies should be in extra.
> 
The depends are bugs. As far as makedepends, i guess its a compromise
the devs had to make.

> But this is not my point, if no-dev want to maintain wicd, I'd like to
> maintain it in community at least.
> 

Appreciated.

Greg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20090104/dc22daf5/attachment.pgp>