| 1 |
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:31:57 -0800 |
| 2 |
Christopher Head <chead@×××××.ca> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Right, of course things can become incompatible—but the distro handles |
| 5 |
> that by either leaving old enough version of e.g. libraries around |
| 6 |
> that the latest stable versions of their reverse dependencies don’t |
| 7 |
> break, or, in exceptional cases (e.g. security), by breaking things |
| 8 |
> intentionally if necessary, thus telling me that there’s a problem. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
True, note that upper limits on the dependencies (<cat/pkg-ver) or |
| 11 |
similar blockers are not always in place; which can make this |
| 12 |
problematic if the maintainer doesn't catch the incompatible regression, |
| 13 |
especially since a lot of us run testing and don't look after older |
| 14 |
or stable packages as much as we would want. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> If stable really is falling behind and the backlog is always growing, |
| 17 |
> obviously something has to be done. I just don’t want “something” to |
| 18 |
> mean “don’t have a stable tree”. The stable tree provides me with a |
| 19 |
> benefit. If standards have to slip a bit to maintain timeliness, then |
| 20 |
> I’d prefer a stable tree that’s as stable as practical, accepting |
| 21 |
> reality—perhaps where users are able to submit reports of working |
| 22 |
> packages, or where we let platform-agnostic packages be stabilized |
| 23 |
> after one arch has tested, or various of the other suggestions in this |
| 24 |
> thread. Just not no stable tree at all. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
+1 as long as we can find effort and ways to keep it around. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
With kind regards, |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 32 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 35 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 36 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives