1 |
Alex Howells wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/02/2008, Markus Hauschild <hauschild.markus@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> If you really want to test ~arch packets you don't necessarily need |
4 |
>> ~arch stages to download, you can just switch your Installation to |
5 |
>> ~arch and then file bugs etc. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> .. which may not be received too well. There is a perception that |
8 |
> Developers *support* ~arch, which is a skewed outlook; it's there for |
9 |
> testing, it is *not* meant to be used by 99.5% of end users. It is a |
10 |
> means to an end, a way to track packages which *may* be stable, a QA |
11 |
> process. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> ie: The following would/should be entirely acceptable: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> <User> I'm running ~arch of libfoo and it's breaking appwoo, help! |
16 |
> Need this to work, really *REALLY* badly! |
17 |
> |
18 |
> <Dev> We're aware of those issues, but libfoo works fine for most |
19 |
> of the other apps which require it. No ETA on the fix, |
20 |
> tough sh*t for running ~arch on a critical box. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> <User> Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! |
23 |
> |
24 |
> If you're interested in helping that QA process, most of the |
25 |
> architecture teams now have an 'Arch Tester' (AT) setup you could help |
26 |
> out with... |
27 |
|
28 |
Well ... I've been running ~x86 and ~amd64 for a long time and I can't |
29 |
remember an instance where I needed to drop back to stable for the |
30 |
things I regularly use, such as R, maxima, Ruby, Lyx, and I can't |
31 |
remember a time when I needed to drop back to stable for a core |
32 |
component like the kernel, gcc, perl, or python either. But -- that's |
33 |
x86 and amd64 -- it might be much riskier on something less common, like |
34 |
powerpc. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
gentoo-releng@l.g.o mailing list |