| 1 |
Doug Goldstein posted on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:46:32 -0600 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Any specific procedure to unstable a package? Specifically MythTV. While |
| 4 |
> there's a lot of user interest in the package, there's just not enough |
| 5 |
> dev help with the package to really keep it up to snuff to what could be |
| 6 |
> considered stable. Its woefully behind and I'd just be happier to drop |
| 7 |
> the current stable and bump everything as unstable. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'm not a mythtv user and know nothing about its technical side, but |
| 10 |
FWIW, I'd suggest that if this is done, a news item, would be |
| 11 |
appropriate. And if there's nothing extremely pressing about it, I'd |
| 12 |
suggest a 60- or 90-day instead of a 30-day lead time, because as rich0's |
| 13 |
post suggests, mythtv users in general likely aren't the most update- |
| 14 |
happy folks around. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
(And FWIW, I'm ~arch by default anyway, so obviously don't have a problem |
| 17 |
with dropping stal^Hble keywording in general. I understand why people |
| 18 |
want stable but that's what debian stable or redhat/scientific/centos, |
| 19 |
etc, are for. IMO, cater to our strengths as a rolling release and leave |
| 20 |
the stal^Hble stuff for those with that as a strength. More time to fix |
| 21 |
issues at decently current upstream stable that way! =:^) Of course, I |
| 22 |
don't expect that idea to go anywhere in general, but FWIW... and I /am/ |
| 23 |
the one suggesting a news item for those that /are/ stal^Hble, with a 90- |
| 24 |
day lead-time, even!) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 28 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 29 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives