[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please don't non-bugs in changelog (again)



On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 06:16:05PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> 
> No changes made to the package, so these bugs should *not* be closed in
> the changelog.  Instead, send a mail to bugnumber-close@bugs.d.o or
> bugnumber-done@b.d.o noting why you're closing the bug.

I'm not sure that you have to slam him for having a bit screwed up
changelog but I'll have to for having really fucked up 
packages. I mean, com on. Before releasing a library of this size,
one should really check not only that it compiles but also that
all the programs work.

I mean, is it so difficult to try to compile the examlpes? I mean,
going into the hello directory in the examples and typing

qmake hello
make

check if it compiles and runs?

This is redicules. I might expect that there might be a missing file
somewhere to some obscure utility or something but to have
core utilities like qmake crap out... well.. do I really have to
say more??

I really believe that a maintainer of something like Qt really
needs to be using it on day to day basis. Imagine what libc, gcc or 
xfree86 would look like if maintainers of those packages were not
using them.

- Adam

> ---
> My secret to happiness... is that I have a heart of a 12-year-old boy.
> It's over here in a jar.  Would you like to see it?

lol

Off to sleep - I have to wait for old Qt packages to recompile with
GCC 3.2 (a few hours)

Attachment: pgpd24bgvjQTp.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: