| 1 |
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 20:10, brett holcomb wrote: |
| 2 |
> What's wrong with the alpha beta being part of ~arch? If |
| 3 |
> someone is working with alpha/beta stuff they know what |
| 4 |
> they're looking for? I really don't see a need to have a |
| 5 |
> multi-tier mess to keep track of alpha/beta/gamma stuff. |
| 6 |
> If it's arch it is stable and works. If it's ~arch it |
| 7 |
> may be broken and break your system. When the developer |
| 8 |
> deems it's okay it moves to arch. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Not really, ~arch means that the package in itself is stable, and the |
| 12 |
developer thinks that the ebuild is also stable. Running ~arch should not |
| 13 |
mean that you get all kinds of beta quality stuff. It means that the |
| 14 |
installing of new packages might in some cases not go without a glitch. Some |
| 15 |
packages might not build without some extra "coersion", but once they are |
| 16 |
installed they should be stable. Unstable packages should be either not |
| 17 |
present or -arch masked or in package.mask. That is the policy as it exists. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Paul |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 23 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 24 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 25 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives