1 |
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:01:13 +0100 |
2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> Please explain me why keeping foobar-1.0 ( Released in 10/12/2009 ) is |
4 |
> in favor of a ppc64 stable user when amd64/x86 has foobar-2.1.3 ( |
5 |
> Released 60 days ago ) already stabled for them |
6 |
|
7 |
Because it's known to work. That's the point of stable. |
8 |
|
9 |
> What if a foobar-1.0 bug pops up? What kind of support will that user |
10 |
> get from the gentoo or upstream maintainer. The most frequent answer |
11 |
> would be "Please update to 2.1.3. 1.0 is 0ld". Yes, not droppping the |
12 |
> keywords is convenient for users but in this case their stable tree |
13 |
> gets obsolet and unsupported |
14 |
|
15 |
When that happens, *then* stabling foobar can become a priority, and |
16 |
the user in question can help with it. However, given the finite amount |
17 |
of development time available, you need to bear in mind that foobar is |
18 |
nowhere near as special as you'd like to think, that Debian is still |
19 |
running foobar 0.0.1, and that something that is known to work is, for |
20 |
many users, better than something that might work. |
21 |
|
22 |
Which, again, is the point: to what extent do you care about users? If |
23 |
you're prepared to tell users to expect annoying breakages that take a |
24 |
lot of work to fix as things get keyworded every now and again because |
25 |
it makes things marginally easier for developers, then go ahead and |
26 |
unkeyword a package plus lots of deps. If you think users are the |
27 |
distribution's primary asset, however, then it's worth inconveniencing |
28 |
yourselves slightly every now and again to save them a lot of pain. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |