1 |
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:11:32 +0000 (UTC) |
2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Jeroen Roovers posted on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:40:45 +0200 as excerpted: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:44:42 +0400 |
7 |
> > Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> >> Also speaking about this specific package: I've maintained this |
10 |
> >> package quite long time and I'm following upstream mailing list |
11 |
> >> and I've never heard from upstream it's safe to push betas on all |
12 |
> >> users. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > I didn't push it on all users. Maybe ~arch users, but they get to |
15 |
> > keep the pieces when they break their systems, if I recall |
16 |
> > correctly. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> To some extent, yes. |
19 |
|
20 |
No, to the full extent. I didn't push it on all users. Read that bit |
21 |
again and don't try to hijack the thread for another one of your |
22 |
explanatory fits. Thank you. |
23 |
|
24 |
pva has a point in that I could have package.masked it. Maybe I should |
25 |
have. I felt I didn't need to, and some others responded. pva and I are |
26 |
both in netmon so we can heartily disagree as long as we ultimately get |
27 |
along and get the job done. |
28 |
|
29 |
> However, Gentoo policy has always been that even ~arch is only |
30 |
> upstream- stable packages, the ~arch keyword denoting Gentoo package |
31 |
> testing (basically, the ebuild script and dependencies), /not/ |
32 |
> upstream testing. In with certain exceptions, in particular for |
33 |
> packages where Gentoo itself is upstream, if it's not a package that |
34 |
> could at least in theory be Gentoo- stable if no bugs appear during |
35 |
> the 30-day standard stabilizing period, it's not supposed to be ~arch |
36 |
> keyworded either. |
37 |
|
38 |
This doesn't even make sense. |
39 |
|
40 |
> That's an important distinction to make. |
41 |
|
42 |
What is? No, don't answer that one. |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
jer |