| 1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> If we're going to define ~arch as basically stable, and arch as |
| 3 |
> out-of-date, then we might as well drop keywords entirely. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I actually don't think that would be such a bad thing. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I only consider ~arch relevant, because it is the closest to upstream. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I want the distribution I use to be as thin as possible; the value it |
| 10 |
adds is administrative - and the Gentoo packages and tools are fantastic. |
| 11 |
\o/ |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The thicker a distribution is, the larger a gap between users and |
| 14 |
upstream it creates, which inconveniences *both* users and upstream, |
| 15 |
because users have to wait for new code, and upstreams have to deal |
| 16 |
with lots of known and possibly fixed bugs. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The ideal would be only live ebuilds, but for now we have no precise |
| 19 |
technology for synchronization. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Version numbers are both blunt and arbitrary. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
//Peter |
Archives