Re: garnome install not working

[guenther <guenther rudersport de>]

[1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/garnome-list/2003-April/msg00007.html
[2] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/garnome-list/2003-April/msg00016.html

> I was just browsing the garnome mailing list for 2003 
> threads.
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/garnome-list/2003-April/msg00006.htmlThere
> 
> I found the same problem arised.

Since you found that post, you sure read the replies to it, didn't you?
One follow up [1] briefly mentions, what needs to be changed, and the
former maintainer explained [2] why this shouldn't even be an option.

Yes, GARNOME takes care of fetching all those tarballs. There is
absolutely no need for the user to manually download 100+ tarballs, and
it really would be bad if the user had to. GARNOME does this.


My opinion about providing checksums for bz2 and gz compressed tarballs:
No. This will significantly increase our workload, and errors can creep
in way too easily.

Anyway, after reading your last posts I am not that excited any longer
about that magazine shipping with GARNOME. They proofed ignorance and a
fundamental lack of understanding. Heck, they did not even use GARNOME
at least once. This is totally untested -- throwing hundreds of MByte at
their readers, without even one single sanity check what they actually
are selling. (If they would have used GARNOME even once, they would have
provided those tarballs.)


The solution has been mentioned in the previous thread. You'd need to
change every single garball's Makefile to use .gz rather than .bz2. Plus
you need to adjust all checksums files. Well, or "drop the checksum
stage" by using a fake md5sum that returns true without actually
checking anything.

Yes, this is a lot of work, or a very good shell script...

Frankly, I would not trust that magazine in this regard, given their
ignorance shown. Are all those tarballs integrity correct? Did they
(manually, obviously) download the correct versions? GARNOME ships with
more recent tarballs when available, which where releases right after
the GNOME freeze. If that magazine throws official GNOME tarball
versions at their readers, this is going to cause issues -- GARNOME may
be ahead of GNOME, fixing issues for our users.


> Now they said of script to do the things for you if
> you have downloaded .gz source file. Although they
> prefer .bz2 to be downloaded but what can we do if we
> haven't downloaded the bz2. 

Exactly that. Change all Makefiles...


> I think the garnome guys should make a patch for this
> thing or insted provide with a solution (shell script)
> that can work for us.

No.

GARNOME ships with support to automatically download tarballs and verify
the integrity of those tarballs. Well, I explained this above.


> Please help (opensource spreads more if people are
> helped when they need help).

I better not comment on this -- it implies we're not helping, no?


> > Yeah GNOME-2.14 came up with Linux For U in the
> > april
> > issue (INDIA).
> > The problem remain even after putting the tarballs
> > in
> > the single directory.
> > Actually the garnome checks for .bz2 files but the
> > source we have is in .gz.
> > That's why even after putting those all tarballs in
> > one common directory it (garnome) goes on finding
> > for
> > .bz2 files and after several attempts fails.
> > I probably think there should be some way to tell
> > garnome to check for .gz not .bz2 (maybe some
> > checksum
> > or I don't know).

...guenther


-- 
A: No.
Q: Should I put my reply above quoted text?