| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Stable should mean something |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> For users, stable means "older" in practice. Always did, always will. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If you don't like stable, then don't run stable. Don't change the |
| 9 |
meaning of stable, however, for those who find it useful. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I've never had a problem with Gentoo stable. If it doesn't work, it |
| 12 |
should be dropped entirely on the arches that don't keep up (even if |
| 13 |
that means all of them). Defining stable to mean "no testing at all |
| 14 |
except by the maintainer" just makes the keyword meaningless - ~arch |
| 15 |
packages are supposed to be tested by the maintainer already. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The main distinction between stable and testing is fewer updates. I'm |
| 18 |
sure the average person who runs mythtv with versions synced across 3 |
| 19 |
systems doesn't need every monthly patch set I push out, but once in a |
| 20 |
while I'll stabilize a keeper, and if somebody wants a particular |
| 21 |
feature sooner they can do the extra work. If a security update comes |
| 22 |
out the stable users still get them. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If gentoo-sources isn't complying with our GLSA standards I think that |
| 25 |
is worth bringing attention (and help) to, but I've yet to hear that |
| 26 |
mentioned. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives