epoll, LSB (was: Re: Problem roundup)

Vincent Béron vberon at mecano.gme.usherb.ca
Sun Nov 21 18:31:40 CST 2004

Le dim 21/11/2004 à 18:59, Ivan Leo Puoti a écrit :
> >You're forgetting K6 and K6-2 users with i586. Also, RH never provided
> >i586 packages (except for kernel and glibc), so it'd be foreign to the
> >distro to offer only that.
> The why not just 386 and 686, that will fit all.
> And you could not build devel and srps packages, or build them but hide them,
> and put a links to them somewhre else than the main download page, so that
> people that want them can get them but end users who just want runtime stuff can
> get it easily.

Removing the -devel and srpms packages is stupid: I (myself) wouldn't
install an RPM if it was OSS and I couldn't find the corresponding SRPM
easily (ie, same place). As for the -devel one, I don't see why you'd
like to remove it.

If you're arguing to do a big cleanup of our download area on sf.net,
there's other things to remove too: CVSup, the Win32 packages should at
least get some more infos as to what purpose they serve (and no, putting
it in the release notes is not sufficient as experience on wine-devel
showed), and winetest (I think it's supposed to be a daily build, but
we're stuck at 20040911 for 2 months and people keep downloading that
version, over 300 downloads vs less than 20 for the 2 before).

One of the things all this shows is that the download area of sf.net has
some shortcomings if there are no other page before filtering what's
available for download.

> Or we could just build some download pages for winehq, and just host the files
> on sf.net, like that we could make them more user friendly. Or we could make
> some pages and put them on winehq.sf.net, so that packagers could edit them
> without having to touch the lostwages cvs.

I know Dimi is against it, but that looks like a good thing to do to me.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list