Adam Majer <adamm@galacticasoftware.com> writes: > 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. Slam? I thought I was being nice and polite. I didn't even use a single cuss word. > 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 think it's safe to say that these packages were rushed to try to get KDE finally into unstable. > 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. There's a lot of different uses for Qt (does just running KDE count?). I think a co-maintainership would definitely be useful to try to cover more of the uses of Qt. Or, at least the packages should be tested by a Qt developer before being uploaded. -- 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?
Attachment:
pgpC93CGyqAW_.pgp
Description: PGP signature