| 1 |
On Thursday 02 September 2004 01:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Which is better? Having 'emerge gnome' fail entirely, or having 'emerge |
| 3 |
> gnome' provide a working gnome which might have a small number of minor |
| 4 |
> unfixed bugs? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Ciaran "the Gnome basher" again. ;) If `emerge gnome` fails entirely, why was |
| 7 |
it ever marked stable on the specific arch? I don't want to speak about the |
| 8 |
Gnome "cannot fix imlib stuff" herd, since there is enough KDE "cannot fix a |
| 9 |
lot of things - at best yesterday" herd stuff. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
To answer your question: Yes, it's better to wait a bit longer - and no, I |
| 12 |
don't speak about minor stuff. I just say, arch maintainers can't know, if |
| 13 |
there's a problem maybe, even though the ebuild compiled flawlessly for the |
| 14 |
moment. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Carsten |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives