| 1 |
Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> Can you clarify this? What scenarios do you run into where it isn't |
| 3 |
> good for stable users to have access to more than one version of the |
| 4 |
> software? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
- Security issues. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
- "Downgrade to hell" scenarios |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
- Other colorful issues that may happen from time to time. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> One thing that I noticed is that in many cases there are multiple |
| 14 |
> testing versions of a package available, and one stable version. So, if |
| 15 |
> you run unstable you can pick and choose, but if you're running stable |
| 16 |
> (which in theory should be the target audience gentoo aims for) then you |
| 17 |
> get your choice of only one. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The stable one is supposed to be the best available, the ~ ones are |
| 20 |
supposed to be "in flux" |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I tend to think that unless something unusual is going on that old |
| 24 |
> packages should be kept around for a while (a few weeks at least). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Happens more than often =) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Others have pointed out that inflexible rules aren't always the answer. |
| 29 |
> I'd agree in general, but there should be guidelines. Maybe certain |
| 30 |
> packages shouldn't have multiple stable versions to choose from. But |
| 31 |
> when "certain packages" becomes 80% of them then I'd wonder if there |
| 32 |
> really is a good reason for this... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Keep in mind that the trade off is : |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
- our time |
| 37 |
- our sanity |
| 38 |
- what provide to our used |
| 39 |
- the quality of what we provide to out users. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
We all try our best to not burn out while serving you the best we could |
| 42 |
think. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
lu |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Luca Barbato |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 51 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives