| 1 |
Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 12:21 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler <a3li@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main |
| 10 |
>>>> interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used. |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>> Making it easily available so that people can port stuff, so that the |
| 14 |
>>> entire world may be able to use it as their main interpreter sooner? |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. |
| 17 |
>>> Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will |
| 18 |
>>> be fine. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>> Isn't ~arch supposed to be for testing? Isn't that the point of having |
| 21 |
>> ~arch? |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So it would be OK to mark something "stable" even tho portage itself |
| 29 |
doesn't work with it? Sorry, this makes no sense to me. I run stable |
| 30 |
for the most part and having a package that portage depends on that is |
| 31 |
not stable just sounds a little like putting the cart before the horse. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
See some of the other replies as to why this is a not so good idea. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Dale |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
:-) :-) |
Archives