Home » Community » U++ community news and announcements » U++ 2017 beta
| Re: U++ 2017 beta [message #47312 is a reply to message #47311] |
Wed, 04 January 2017 07:28   |
MrSarup
Messages: 30
Registered: December 2016
|
Member |
|
|
Hello Amrein -Marie,
amrein wrote on Wed, 04 January 2017 01:04
If you still want to remove upp-devel.spec than, well, does it really matter? If it's broken, at least rpm packagers will have something to start from. If you remove it, most people will use the standard 'make' procedure.
I must add and support you on your objection to the idea of removing the spec file. Even if Mirek populated the idea of removing the spec file, I dare say so blatantly that this idea is a garbage idea. Perhaps Mirek has not done a lot of activity on different platforms or is less informed about trouble-shooting on other platforms other than the damn Bill's platforms.
For this, I would like to share my experience during build. At the time I started to work on my Centos Server with U++, i.e. to compile it, I could not easily with make.
The dependencies you have listed in the other thread on discussion on my problem, were not sufficient. There was a binary still missing on my server. It did not get identified from the list you mentioned.
Thereafter, I used the spec file. Only then yum package manager could identify all dependencies and compiled it.
Later, you took the daunting challenge to make rpm and provide both, *src.rpm and *rpm. With either of these, I could work with umk.
Without your help, i.e. in the absence of rpms, I had to invest a lot of time and energy. This could be saved in case of all new comers.
The Linux world stopped working with a "tar ball only" approach several decades ago, when the idea of package managers got popular. It appears that this is not understood here. Let's say, will the Linux community announce the following for Centos:
yum -y install upp
No! If not, that idea is garbage!!! As simple. Period.
This is a classic example of the restrictive development process of U++ that centers around Mirek's taste, time, approaches, etc.
The reason is that he is alone, or predominantly working on this project and there are not many active developers available.
Thus, as I suggested above, an action group is necessary to share this work, instead of leaving to his shoulders.
[Updated on: Wed, 04 January 2017 07:39] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
 |
|
U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Thu, 22 December 2016 09:25 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Thu, 22 December 2016 20:25 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Thu, 22 December 2016 23:00 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Sun, 25 December 2016 08:02 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Klugier on Sun, 25 December 2016 21:29 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: omari on Mon, 26 December 2016 13:36 |
|
 |
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mr_ped on Fri, 23 December 2016 04:02 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: koldo on Fri, 23 December 2016 10:28 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Sun, 25 December 2016 09:23 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Sun, 25 December 2016 09:52 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Sun, 25 December 2016 10:02 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Sun, 25 December 2016 09:52 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Sun, 25 December 2016 11:24 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Sun, 01 January 2017 21:51 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Wed, 28 December 2016 13:31 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 28 December 2016 16:53 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Wed, 28 December 2016 20:53 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Klugier on Wed, 28 December 2016 23:15 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: amrein on Thu, 29 December 2016 08:44 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Sun, 01 January 2017 21:54 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Sun, 01 January 2017 22:03 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Mon, 02 January 2017 06:09 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Mon, 02 January 2017 22:31 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Mon, 02 January 2017 21:42 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: amrein on Tue, 03 January 2017 14:22 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Tue, 03 January 2017 14:59 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: amrein on Wed, 04 January 2017 01:04 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Wed, 04 January 2017 07:28 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 07:59 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 08:03 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Wed, 04 January 2017 08:47 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: MrSarup on Wed, 04 January 2017 09:00 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 10:28 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Tom1 on Wed, 04 January 2017 12:32 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 12:38 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Tom1 on Wed, 04 January 2017 13:20 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 14:39 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Tom1 on Wed, 04 January 2017 15:29 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Thu, 05 January 2017 08:38 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Tom1 on Thu, 05 January 2017 09:17 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 14:49 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
|
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Wed, 04 January 2017 15:47 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: Klugier on Wed, 04 January 2017 22:32 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Thu, 05 January 2017 08:23 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mr_ped on Thu, 05 January 2017 05:01 |
|
|
Re: U++ 2017 beta
By: mirek on Thu, 05 January 2017 08:20 |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 07 12:22:16 CEST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01844 seconds
|
Members
Pages
Help
Register
Login
Home
