| 1 |
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Any specific procedure to unstable a package? Specifically MythTV. |
| 3 |
> While there's a lot of user interest in the package, there's just not |
| 4 |
> enough dev help with the package to really keep it up to snuff to what |
| 5 |
> could be considered stable. Its woefully behind... |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The current unstable package for mythtv was the upstream stable |
| 8 |
version only a few weeks ago. I was contemplating stabilizing it, |
| 9 |
although with 0.24.2 out it might make more sense to target that |
| 10 |
version. The current stable version should certainly be removed ASAP |
| 11 |
- it contains numerous bugs and some QA issues that have been fixed in |
| 12 |
the unstable version. The only thing the stable version has going for |
| 13 |
it is support for more plugins. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If I get a long weekend I might try upgrading to 0.24.2 and getting |
| 16 |
that into portage (assuming nobody else beats me to it). |
| 17 |
Unfortunately my only mythtv system is essentially a production |
| 18 |
system, so I can't really have it down for any length of time. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If we do make mythtv unstable I'd prefer that we not drop versions too |
| 21 |
quickly. If somebody else is able to keep up with the bleeding-edge |
| 22 |
versions more power to them, but if the consensus is that the older |
| 23 |
versions have to go most likely I'd just start maintaining my own |
| 24 |
overlay and abandon the one in portage. I can really only do a |
| 25 |
serious version bump maybe 2-3 times per year at most. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm not convinced that going completely unstable is really going to |
| 28 |
solve anything, however. I'd rather have a core of stable |
| 29 |
functionality than something bleeding-edge for something like mythtv. |
| 30 |
Then again, that might just be personal preference. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives