[Cooker] Re: [RPM] 2008.1 main/testing pidgin-2.4.1-2mdv2008.1

View: New views
4 Messages — Rating Filter:   Alert me  

Parent Message unknown [Cooker] Re: [RPM] 2008.1 main/testing pidgin-2.4.1-2mdv2008.1

by Adam Williamson-4 :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:46 +0200, GXtz Waschk wrote:
> Name        : pidgin                       Relocations: (not relocatable)
> Version     : 2.4.1                             Vendor: Mandriva
> Release     : 2mdv2008.1                    Build Date: Wed Jul  2 13:10:04 2008

> - add patch for new icq version (bug #41783)

This needs to be done for 2008.0 (and possibly 2007.1) as well.
--
adamw


Re: [Cooker] Re: [RPM] 2008.1 main/testing pidgin-2.4.1-2mdv2008.1

by Götz Waschk :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Adam Williamson
<awilliamson@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:46 +0200, GXtz Waschk wrote:
>> Name        : pidgin                       Relocations: (not relocatable)
>> Version     : 2.4.1                             Vendor: Mandriva
>> Release     : 2mdv2008.1                    Build Date: Wed Jul  2 13:10:04 2008
>> - add patch for new icq version (bug #41783)
> This needs to be done for 2008.0 (and possibly 2007.1) as well.
There's no open bug for these, so I don't care. Also, I don't have
these distributions anymore, so I cannot test it.

--
AL I:40: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Re: [Cooker] Re: [RPM] 2008.1 main/testing pidgin-2.4.1-2mdv2008.1

by Vincent Danen-2 :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

* [2008-07-04 06:47:42 +0200] G?tz Waschk wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Adam Williamson
><awilliamson@...> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:46 +0200, GXtz Waschk wrote:
>>> Name        : pidgin                       Relocations: (not relocatable)
>>> Version     : 2.4.1                             Vendor: Mandriva
>>> Release     : 2mdv2008.1                    Build Date: Wed Jul  2 13:10:04 2008
>>> - add patch for new icq version (bug #41783)
>> This needs to be done for 2008.0 (and possibly 2007.1) as well.
>There's no open bug for these, so I don't care. Also, I don't have
>these distributions anymore, so I cannot test it.
Not the greatest attitude, but you don't have to worry about 2007.1 as
it's in base support.  Doing 2008.0 would be nice, and I suspect if you
patched it and put it into main/testing, someone else would be able to
test it and let you know if it worked or not.

Alternatively, would it be possible to bump 2008.0's version to this
version?  Are there any dependencies or something that would break/be
required for us to move from 2.2.x to 2.4.x on 2008.0?

I did note in bugzilla that it should probably be done for 2008.0 and
indicated that it was up to the maintainer, so it's clearly your call.
Yes, I did close the bug report because it was specific to 2008.1.

--
Vincent Danen @ http://linsec.ca/


attachment0 (201 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: [Cooker] Re: [RPM] 2008.1 main/testing pidgin-2.4.1-2mdv2008.1

by Adam Williamson-4 :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 06:47 +0200, Götz Waschk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Adam Williamson
> <awilliamson@...> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:46 +0200, GXtz Waschk wrote:
> >> Name        : pidgin                       Relocations: (not relocatable)
> >> Version     : 2.4.1                             Vendor: Mandriva
> >> Release     : 2mdv2008.1                    Build Date: Wed Jul  2 13:10:04 2008
> >> - add patch for new icq version (bug #41783)
> > This needs to be done for 2008.0 (and possibly 2007.1) as well.

> There's no open bug for these, so I don't care. Also, I don't have
> these distributions anymore, so I cannot test it.

We do still have these mythical beings called 'users', and I sent my
mail because two of them on the forums today asked when this will be
fixed for 2008. I can ask them to jump through the hoop of filing a bug,
but it seems a bit pointless when we're all aware exactly what the
problem is.

Another popular thread on the forums lately: well, there's two,
actually, asking about twelve month release cycles because they find six
months too fast. The answer from our trusty regulars? It doesn't matter,
because you can just use a release for twelve months if you like.
Trouble is, that breaks down if packagers are going to say "oh, it's
nine months old, I don't care about it any more."
--
adamw