Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Devon Miller]

You both seem to be arguing about what constitutes stable. And there are 2
different definitions: stable as defined by the upstream source and stable
as defined in portage.

In this case, the "upstream stable" is 0.9.3 and the "portage stable" os 0.8
.

Not appreciating the distinction, Maxim was asking why he's not getting the
latest stable (expecting the "upstream stable").

Alexander's comments reflect the "portage stable", but don't take in to
account that portage does not always keep up. In fact, in this case it's
languished rather badly.

0.9.1 was added to bugzilla (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87626)
in Apr-05
It looks like it was added to portage in Nov-05
It's been in portage for 11 months, with no bugs filed against it, and it's
still ~x86.

0.9.2 was added to bugzilla (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=) in
Dec-05
It l was added to portage in Feb-06
It's been in portage for 8 months, with no bugs filed against it, and it's
still ~x86.

Now, Darren has added a bug for 0.9.3 and a month later, it's still waiting
to get added to portage.
His issue is 0.9.1 and 0.9.2 should have been stable by now.

So, while Alexander is technically correct, (emerge is doing exactly what it
should) this not a good thing, because portage is still delivering older,
buggy code. Unfortunately, getting ebuilds marked stable requires the
intervention of a Gentoo developer and while the documentation says what
*should* happen, it does not say what to do when something falls through the
cracks.

I would suggest Darren look through the develoiper list (
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/userinfo.xml) for developers
handling media-sound. Add them to the cc list on the 0.9.2 ebuild and add a
comment asking that it be marked stable. And ask for the 0.9.3 to be added
as ~x86

dcm

On 10/19/06, Alexander Skwar <listen@×××××××××××××××.name> wrote:
>
> Darren Kirby <bulliver@×××××××××××.org>:
>
> > Quoth the Alexander Skwar
> >
> >> Darren, on the other hand, seems to have
> >> some misunderstanding about how portage works.
> >
> > Stop being so bloody obtuse and read my response to Willie. I know
> perfectly
> > well how portage works. I am taking issues with your vague responses
> which
> > are open to several interpretations.
>
> No, they are not. I said, that it is unreasonable to expect, that
> emerge should offer a version other than 0.8 of dir2ogg, as that's
> the latest stable. Or rather, I asked maxim why he thinks, that
> a version, other than the latest stable (ie. 0.8), should be
> offered.
>
> > You would be well served by writing a clear and concise response
>
> I did. If you try to interprete it somehow and you get it wrong,
> than I'm terribly sorry for that, but that's just not my problem.
>
> > rather than
> > another open-ended question if you want to get your point accross.
>
> My point is, that emerge offers, by default, to install the latest
> stable version. I wanted to make maxim think about why he expects
> a different version.
>
> >> Just because there's
> >> a newer version of some program out there in the wild, doesn't mean,
> >> that it'll be available to emerge/portage through some sort of magic.
> >
> > That's certainly not what I think,
>
> I didn't say so, did I?
>
>
> Alexander Skwar
> --
> <rcw> those apparently-bacteria-like multicolor worms coming out of
>       microsoft's backorifice
> <rcw> that's the backoffice logo
>
>
> --
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list
>
>