| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:50:58 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | Stephen Bennett napsal(a): |
| 4 |
> | > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0100 |
| 5 |
> | > Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> | > |
| 7 |
> | >> Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and |
| 8 |
> | >> vulnerable junk in the tree for years? (Outdated ebuild A depends |
| 9 |
> | >> on junky outdated ebuild B which depends on crappy, unsupported |
| 10 |
> | >> ebuilds C, D and E which... ) |
| 11 |
> | > |
| 12 |
> | > To avoid breaking the dep tree for users. Quite simple really. |
| 13 |
> | |
| 14 |
> | Ah. That's apparently much more important than not breaking users by |
| 15 |
> | providing them w/ non-vulnerable, decently uptodate stuff that's not |
| 16 |
> | ridden by tons of bugs. Yup. :P |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> So if it's "ridden by tons of bugs", why did it ever get marked stable? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Sometimes bugs are discovered after a stable marking, such as security |
| 22 |
bugs. You of all people know how crappy some software developers are at |
| 23 |
releasing bug-free software. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives