| 1 |
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:14:37PM +0200, cilly wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Fernando J. Pereda wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > I think that setting arbitrary guidelines that try to rule every |
| 5 |
> > situation is just *plain* wrong. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Some of the packages I maintain are better removed when a new |
| 8 |
> > maintenance version is released. And I plan to keep it that way :) |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > As usual, deep known of the package you are removing and common sense is |
| 11 |
> > way better than guidelines 'to rule them all'. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I see myself very often upgrading and encountering a bug which |
| 14 |
> requires me to downgrade. But a downgrade isn't easily possible since |
| 15 |
> the last stable ebuild has already been replaced by the newer and |
| 16 |
> buggy one. The bug must not be in the ebuild itself, sometimes a |
| 17 |
> version-upgrade (upstream) brings new features and new bugs. |
| 18 |
> Sometimes it is nearly impossible for a package maintainer to get an |
| 19 |
> overview of possible bugs, may be upstream bugs, or typos. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Well, if maintainers can't properly follow upstream development they |
| 22 |
should probably seek help in their maintenance job. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- ferdy |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín |
| 28 |
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 |
Archives