1 |
On Wednesday 28 July 2004 09:41 am, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 15:53, Caleb Tennis wrote: |
3 |
> > I didn't intend for it to be package.mask'd - it's quite stable, |
4 |
> |
5 |
> I'd like to disagree: Bug 58527 |
6 |
> Konqueror is consistently segfaulting on my machine, so I'd like to keep |
7 |
> 3.3_beta masked until 3.3 final arrives. |
8 |
> 3.3 is still a beta, so pushing it in ~x86 seems like a very strange |
9 |
> decision to me. ~x86 is for unstable _ebuilds_, not unstable packages as |
10 |
> far as I know. |
11 |
|
12 |
Because it consistently segfaults on your machine is no reason to keep it |
13 |
masked - in fact, it works quite well for me and a large number of users or I |
14 |
never would have considered it. Quite likely something else is going on. A |
15 |
backtrace with debugging info would be helpful to solve it. |
16 |
|
17 |
> What's the policy on this? |
18 |
> As much as I like bleeding edge stuff, I'd like to keep the bleeding as |
19 |
> small as possible :-) |
20 |
|
21 |
It's far from bleeding edge - the features are frozen and it's namely just bug |
22 |
fixes at this point. If anyone disagrees simply because the package name |
23 |
contains the word "beta", then please come at me with more hard evidence. |
24 |
|
25 |
I assume that vapier thought I "forgot" to package.mask it, so he did it for |
26 |
me, and this is why I unmasked it without throwing too much of a fuss. |
27 |
|
28 |
So, let's be productive here and use the time between now and the final |
29 |
release to get the ebuilds and dependencies fixed, make sure things work |
30 |
well, and hammer out bugs. If you still feel like it's too unstable to use, |
31 |
then simply don't use it. :) |
32 |
|
33 |
Caleb |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |