| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 05:56:25PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If upstream does a new release, fixes bugs. Gentoo marks a previous |
| 4 |
> release stable. It is stabilizing a package with issues fixed upstream. |
| 5 |
> That does not make sense. Gentoo issues maybe good, but not upstreams. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I maintained packages like iText which used to have a 30 day release |
| 8 |
> cycle. Up till recently Jetty was about the same. As a end user, I |
| 9 |
> needed the bug fixes. Not the delay for it be marked stable. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I stopped running Redhat long ago due to time to vet updates. I run |
| 12 |
> Gentoo for the speed of being able to package and test out new code. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
What I get out of this discussion is that some people prefer to run |
| 15 |
~arch versus stable arch. I have no problem with that. But I do object |
| 16 |
to dropping "stable" altogether. I personally run stable with the rare |
| 17 |
occasional unstable package, where it's either not available as stable, |
| 18 |
or the unstable version fixes a bug in the stable version. And just for |
| 19 |
kicks I'm running gcc 6.3.0. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It's one thing to rush-stabilize a new package that fixes a security |
| 22 |
hole. But I don't see the point of rush-stabilizing everything "just |
| 23 |
because". I recommend mostly keeping our current setup, with one |
| 24 |
change, i.e. allowing security-fix ebuilds to go "stable" immediately. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 28 |
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications |
Archives