Alex Howells wrote:
> On 03/02/2008, Markus Hauschild <hauschild.markus@...> wrote:
>> If you really want to test ~arch packets you don't necessarily need
>> ~arch stages to download, you can just switch your Installation to
>> ~arch and then file bugs etc.
>
> .. which may not be received too well. There is a perception that
> Developers *support* ~arch, which is a skewed outlook; it's there for
> testing, it is *not* meant to be used by 99.5% of end users. It is a
> means to an end, a way to track packages which *may* be stable, a QA
> process.
>
> ie: The following would/should be entirely acceptable:
>
> <User> I'm running ~arch of libfoo and it's breaking appwoo, help!
> Need this to work, really *REALLY* badly!
>
> <Dev> We're aware of those issues, but libfoo works fine for most
> of the other apps which require it. No ETA on the fix,
> tough sh*t for running ~arch on a critical box.
>
> <User> Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
>
> If you're interested in helping that QA process, most of the
> architecture teams now have an 'Arch Tester' (AT) setup you could help
> out with...
Well ... I've been running ~x86 and ~amd64 for a long time and I can't
remember an instance where I needed to drop back to stable for the
things I regularly use, such as R, maxima, Ruby, Lyx, and I can't
remember a time when I needed to drop back to stable for a core
component like the kernel, gcc, perl, or python either. But -- that's
x86 and amd64 -- it might be much riskier on something less common, like
powerpc.
--
gentoo-releng@g.o mailing list
|
