| 1 |
Branko Badrljica schrieb: |
| 2 |
> William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> If you accept the defaults and it doesn't work, I will gladly agree that |
| 4 |
>> there is a major regression and the package should be masked. On the |
| 5 |
>> other hand, if the new network scripts do not work, I don't see that as |
| 6 |
>> a show stopper. Yes, I would agree that there should be a warning about |
| 7 |
>> turning off the oldnet use flag, but I don't think this warrants masking |
| 8 |
>> the ebuild, unless I am missing something. If I am, definitely let me |
| 9 |
>> know. |
| 10 |
> I don't feel comfortable with your philosophy. It doesn't matter how |
| 11 |
> obvious matters seem to you, your changes can affect many people in many |
| 12 |
> situations and configurations, not necessarily allways without unforseen |
| 13 |
> consequences. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I understand that Gentoo is not for pussies and that you can't make an |
| 16 |
> ISO-9001 procedure for every change with every user, but it would really |
| 17 |
> be nice to have at least some _basic_ safety, like mentioning changes in |
| 18 |
> eselect news, or at least on home page of the package. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I disagree in this place. ~arch is called testing because it actually is about TESTING new versions |
| 21 |
and packages. You should expect problems and you should be able to recover from them and you should |
| 22 |
be able to use bugzilla. Else i suggest you move to a stable arch instead. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Your arguments could make sense, if it would be about the stable tree, but forcing the testing tree |
| 25 |
to be a second stable tree, just with newer package versions isnt our goal nor does it help anyone. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives