28 Aug
2005
28 Aug
'05
12:59 a.m.
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:23:35 -0300, bulia byak wrote:
I'm out of my depth here, but my impression was that they worked relatively well. I think even autopackage had more bugs reported than static rpms.
That may be because they're downloaded more often (2518 downloads of 0.42 autopackage vs 853 static rpms).
I'd like to propose that the bugs were caused by letting a newbie make the packages. :) They'll get better.
Aaron Spike