I understand your reason for doing it and maybe be are some massochists as Philipp says because we're building on a gcc *.0
but thats the fun of arch ofcourse 2010/6/4 Nathan O. <[email protected]> > I understand, and I am not trying to attack either, just wanted to clarify > why I am trying the deb file to attempt to get it to work. See kamix was the > previous version, kalsamix is the updated name version, so I am trying to > get it to work in case something may depend on it or somebody wants it. > > > On 06/04/2010 03:37 AM, Ike Devolder wrote: > >> i'm sorry if this is somekind of attack on your effort to keep this >> packages >> up to date >> >> it was just your message about kalsamix that triggered my concern about >> deb >> packages since i saw more of this. >> >> 2010/6/4 Nathan O.<[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> First I just wanted to clear this, I would normally build from source, >>> but >>> if it doesn't work I will attempt at a deb package, but even that doesn't >>> work >>> >>> >>> On 06/04/2010 03:28 AM, Ike Devolder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> in some recent updates of some packages you see more and more deb's or >>>> rpms >>>> or whatever being extracted and repacked for arch >>>> >>>> is there some aur guideline about this, i really don't like this >>>> development >>>> because why not take advantage of our bleeding edge gcc power >>>> >>>> if the source is there, why not build from it? >>>> >>>> in cases like opera it is understandable because it is not open source, >>>> but >>>> in some other cases like kalsamix i find it very disturbing >>>> >>>> maybe some other comments about this ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
