| 1 |
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 01:15:47 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Wednesday 01 September 2004 18:30, Robert Moss wrote: |
| 4 |
| > Everything is broken to some extent. |
| 5 |
| |
| 6 |
| The point is, that you can hardly measure, if a new version is less |
| 7 |
| broken than an older one, if you do not actively maintain a package. |
| 8 |
| You can't know which patches a package maintainer wants to apply, |
| 9 |
| before marking an ebuild stable. Exchanging a broken version with a |
| 10 |
| slightly less broken is acceptable for unstable stuff, not for stable |
| 11 |
| ebuilds. You may not agree, but then you have no sense for quality. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Which is better? Having 'emerge gnome' fail entirely, or having 'emerge |
| 14 |
gnome' provide a working gnome which might have a small number of minor |
| 15 |
unfixed bugs? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox) |
| 19 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 20 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives