Revision of repository

[pags]

Fair enough.

We have a "Broken Packages" forum, where these are getting reported.

Perhaps, the way to think of this is, yes, technically you may find a number of "Broken Packages" (primarily, I suspect, and has been previously noted, due to bad spec files).  Odds are good, I'm guessing, however that the dependencies not specc'ed are in most default installations, anyway, so they never provide an issue for most people.  Otherwise, we would see more of them listed on the forum.
They may be an issue with "mini" ISOs, or installs that have been deliberately pared down.  These are more unique use cases, and I think should be dealt with as they appear.

Why do I feel this way?
Because, I would be concerned that listing every "broken" package that needs to be redone may take away developer time...especially is they are seen as "easy" or "quick" fixes...amplified over an inordinate number of packages could take away from actual upgrades and/or new packages.  Hence, I think as they occur in real-world situations (even if it's just one person), get reported and subsequently fixed; that is a better use of our limited resources.

[Tony]

Interesting discussion, thanks liberation, and pags !

[snoz]

Because, I would be concerned that listing every "broken" package that needs to be redone may take away developer time...especially is they are seen as "easy" or "quick" fixes...amplified over an inordinate number of packages could take away from actual upgrades and/or new packages.  Hence, I think as they occur in real-world situations (even if it's just one person), get reported and subsequently fixed; that is a better use of our limited resources.

+1
FWIW I think this thread was created to try to generate bad feeling towards the devs.

[sling-shot]

Let us stop shooting messengers. That only increases any bad feeling.

For me, it looks like an eager person who just wants to improve the situation. Sometimes things are not clear until the WHOLE PICTURE is seen.

If the suggestion is unworkable, let it lie. Better to direct the enthusiasm in another direction and make use of it rather than turning away altogether

Just my opinion.

[snoz]

So you really think that if the devs find they have massive amounts of free time they don't KNOW how to find out what is broken?

[sling-shot]

I am not talking about this particular suggestion. If someone has come forward with something, it means that they care for the improvement of this distro. And there are very few people I see around who are capable of actually contributing / having spare time to do it.

So in this case, it would be good for the distro to find out what he could do and direct him towards causes the devs find worthy.
PCLinuxOS can only improve by attracting developers and not repelling them.

--------------------

[liberation]

There is another running thread I had created calling for developers / packagers. Would you be interested to join?
    
Desperately seeking MORE packagers - please join hands http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php/topic,111231.0.html

[snoz]

it means that they care for the improvement of this distro.

It could mean that. Or it could be someone who wants an "official" page of broken packages they can point people to saying "I wouldn't advise installing that distro because even they admit they have hundreds of broken packages"

If a prospective packager want to help fix packages but doesn't know how to find out what needs fixing they could ask the devs IN PRIVATE for a list of packages that need attention. I don't see why this laundry needs to be washed in public.

Just my opinion
--Steve

[JohnW_57]

This issue is already known to the packagers/developers from some pclinuxos testers and guess it's belongs to in pclinuxos testers section.
PClinuxOS testers section is not public but only visible for the forum members.

Guess it's be belongs to there!!
If you need a application what's broken then post on broken packages section.

JohnW

[TerryN]

Thank-you John.  I think that sums it up perfectly.

Terry