| 1 |
* Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> schrieb: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The above suggestion sounds to me like increasing the bureaucracy and |
| 4 |
> hassle of stabilizing packages even more. We already have trouble with |
| 5 |
> outdated stable, especially on some archs. Do we /really/ want the |
| 6 |
> reputation of competing with Debian-stal^hble for staleness? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Well, I often have cases where the stable tree breaks something |
| 9 |
or requires deeper manual intervention. That doesn't make fun when |
| 10 |
maintaining dozens of systems. So a more-stable tree (hmm, perhaps |
| 11 |
call it 'mature' ;-)) would be a big win. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I could also imagine doing that on per-package basis. |
| 14 |
Lets say, somehow automatically export the last time of unresolved |
| 15 |
bugs per ebuild to some sane place in the portage tree (eg. some |
| 16 |
new file in the per-package subdirs) so people could script up |
| 17 |
something that automatically maintains package.mask ? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
cu |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 23 |
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@×××××.de |
| 26 |
mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 |
| 27 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 28 |
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme |
| 29 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Archives