| 1 |
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:20:09 +0200 |
| 2 |
Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: |
| 5 |
> > If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do |
| 6 |
> > "=category/package-version-revision ~arch" instead of |
| 7 |
> > "category/package ~arch", this doesn't happen. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Hardcoding specific ~arch versions or revisions unless absolutely |
| 10 |
> needed is a bad idea. Remember that we don't do GLSA's for testing |
| 11 |
> stuff. If bleeding edge, then bleeding edge. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather |
| 14 |
than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If I want something from ~arch, it's for one of two reasons: |
| 17 |
1) There's a feature/fix that I need now |
| 18 |
2) I want to try out a new version of something for fun |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I certainly don't want to take everything from ~arch; that way leads to |
| 21 |
regular system instability. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
In practice, I tend to do: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
=category/package-version* ~arch |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
so that I pick up -rN bumps on unstable versions as this should mean |
| 28 |
that the maintainer considers the change necessary for users of that |
| 29 |
version. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives