| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 10:36:41AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:28 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Besides our maintainers keeping old packages around, we are doing a |
| 5 |
> > disservice to our stable users by offering them old software instead of |
| 6 |
> > keeping them as current as possible. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No argument, but if you actually asked stable users I'm not convinced |
| 10 |
> that they'd prefer less-tested recent packages over well-tested older |
| 11 |
> ones. Anything to get things fresher is good, but there probably |
| 12 |
> needs to be some kind of sanity check. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
To clarify what I said earlier, if you are running full ~, there is no |
| 15 |
way you can easily test your packages against the stable tree, so you |
| 16 |
shouldn't be stabilizing anything, no matter which arch you are using. |
| 17 |
To stabilize packages, you should be running a mostly stable system |
| 18 |
other than the packages you maintain. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
William |
Archives