| 1 |
I strongly oppose this, I don't think it is a good idea to introduce |
| 2 |
development versions of such big packages, this could create all sorts |
| 3 |
of problems. For instance beta1 of kde 3.3 broke the openoffice-ximian |
| 4 |
compile with kde support because of a bug in kdelibs, and no matter how |
| 5 |
stable the beta might be for you, it might create lots of problems for |
| 6 |
the rest of us. (and the users who run unstable). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Also if I recall correctly the usual policy is that unstable is NOT for |
| 9 |
development versions but for the testing of stable versions. At least |
| 10 |
for libs which other packages depend on I totally agree with this. Users |
| 11 |
who want to try out development versions should also be able to edit |
| 12 |
package.mask |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
bye suka |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 08:53 -0500, Caleb Tennis wrote: |
| 17 |
> I didn't intend for it to be package.mask'd - it's quite stable, we want to |
| 18 |
> get the testing in ~unstable, and it's only listed for x86 and amd64, both of |
| 19 |
> which are stable up to the latest version. Plus, it won't interfere with |
| 20 |
> anyone running 3.2 anyway. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Reverting vapier's package.mask. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Caleb |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> -- |
| 27 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Andreas Proschofsky |
| 31 |
Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org |
Archives