Originally posted by IhmSelbst
iirc, there should be enabled the same things in the SuSE10.0-package, as were standard in the official 2.0.3-rpm for SuSE9.3
There are 10 executables:
alc
alcc
amule
amulecmd
amuled
amulegui
amuleweb
cas
ed2k
wxcas
PackMan's RPM has all of them, yours doesn't seem to have amuled + amulegui. This doesn't mean that everyone should enable them, I just mentioned the difference.
Originally posted by IhmSelbst
perhaps one should "define" a kind of "standard", what a package should contain or what?
That's difficult to do - the most common solution with binary packages is to enable everything. Maybe with subpackages for optional things.
Originally posted by IhmSelbst
if required, one could (rebuild and) offer an "official" package for here, but we also can continue sending ppl to packman´s.
Hm... My idea was following:
- Reduce the total amount of binary packages to avoid confusion, duplication etc.
- If there's a problem with existing packages (bad configuration etc.), contact the packager and explain the situation so he can improve it instead of creating a new one
PackMan is a well-known resource for SuSE users, so I think it makes sense to bundle the efforts there. The only problem is that they do releases only, no CVS builds. Another advantage with PackMan's repository is that it supports YaST, apt4rpm and yum.
So my suggestion would be:
- Let PackMan do the packages for released versions - they have mirrors, disk space, bandwidth en masse etc. + x86_64 hardware(!)
- If PackMan does something wrong, write to him (Quentin Denis) + attach a patch that fixes the problem
- Send people to you if they want CVS binaries
What do you think about this idea?
As far as it concerns wx stuff: There's no need to worry about that, I think. For SuSE 10.0, SuSE's RPM is fine and for earlier versions, aMule's ./configure will stop anyway so people won't end up with old/unstable/broken ones.
