Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 05:49:46
Message-Id: 1389851236.20022.12.camel@oswin.hackershack.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by "Robin H. Johnson"
1 On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 02:32 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
2 > > In my testing, one known issue was that git on uclibc did (and still
3 > > doesn't) work properly starting with git 1.8 - so I noted in the bug
4 > > that this was the case, and to NOT stable it for arm. Unfortunately,
5 > > someone else on the ARM team disregarded the note and stabled the new
6 > > git, then the git maintainers dropped the old versions. Now on arm
7 > > uclibc, git is entirely broken and unusable.
8 > Ugh, this does suck.
9 >
10
11 It does, though it's specific to arm uclibc, as it works fine on
12 amd64/x86 uclibc. And unfortunately, it seems like this type of thing
13 is what people are proposing we move towards. Instead of working but
14 old, not having access to the software at all. I know it's not the
15 norm, nor is it typical, but the chance of this happening does exist,
16 and I can't see how anyone would say, well, that's just the chance that
17 people should take, unless they've never been bitten by a bug like this.
18
19
20 > Wasn't there a proposal years ago to include the libc in the keyword?
21 >
22
23 There may have been, I'm not sure that's really the right step either
24 though.