| 1 |
On 7/2/06, Daniel Ahlberg <aliz@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> This is an automatically created email message. |
| 5 |
> http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable has just been updated with 15968 ebuilds. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
A question [1] has come up on -user about why some ebuilds take so |
| 8 |
long to become stable for an arch. This isn't the old "when will we |
| 9 |
have KDE yesterday.3am" type question. In reviewing the above |
| 10 |
database, and the OP, it looks like a fair number of ebuilds that |
| 11 |
could/should be stable are not. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Of particular concern to me are packages that: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
a) have no open bugs. |
| 16 |
b) are marked stable on some archs, but not others. |
| 17 |
c) may have only a single version available in portage. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As an example, consider net-analyzer/etherape, which is "~amd64 ppc |
| 20 |
sparc x86", and has no open bugs (other than a version bump request), |
| 21 |
and only a single version available in portage to begin with. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So my question is: is there anything that interested users can do to |
| 24 |
help here? I know we can file stabilization bugs, but I agree with |
| 25 |
Robert [1] that this should not be necessary in the normal case. |
| 26 |
Besides, do you _really_ want 16,000 new bug reports that say nothing |
| 27 |
more than "blah/foo works for me, please stabilize"! Is the problem a |
| 28 |
lack of time, devs, arch testers, or interested users? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
-Richard |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/166565/focus=166565 |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives