| 1 |
On 9/4/06, b.n. <brullonulla@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't get it. A given arch system should be self consistent. An ~arch |
| 3 |
> system in theory should be too, but being testing I understand it can not. |
| 4 |
> The purpose of being on arch should be "having a self consistent system |
| 5 |
> within itself" not "having a mostly working bunch of packages". The few, |
| 6 |
> seldom-used packages could be the *critical* packages for a given user |
| 7 |
> (I think to some scientific packages, for example... not many use them, |
| 8 |
> but they can be the very reason to have Linux for someone) Shouldn't all |
| 9 |
> stable packages being tested with a given compiler before that compiler |
| 10 |
> becomes stable? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
In an ideal world, yes. But it isn't an ideal world, and the |
| 13 |
expectation that nothing in the "stable" tree will ever break is just |
| 14 |
not something that can be satisfied [1]. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Also, the gcc and release enginering teams have stated quite |
| 17 |
emphatically that they are not going to hold up progress on their |
| 18 |
projects just because other (typically maintainer-wanted) projects are |
| 19 |
not keeping up. [2] & [3] |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
There is a debate (argument?, flame war?) going on between devs about |
| 22 |
exactly how much notice was given in advance of gcc _moving_ to |
| 23 |
stable, but the package maintainers did have 2 months between gcc 4.1 |
| 24 |
entering ~arch and it moving to stable to fix their problems and move |
| 25 |
the fixed versions to stable. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So in the end, arch users are in much the same position as ~arch, |
| 28 |
except hopefully your incidences of breakage are much more rare. And |
| 29 |
IMO, you also get the right to bitch about it...but only if you also |
| 30 |
report the problems on bugs.gentoo.org! ;-) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
And of course, Gentoo comes with a lifetime guarantee of complete |
| 33 |
satisfaction or your money back. :-P |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-Richard |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev%40lists.gentoo.org/msg15036.html |
| 38 |
[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev%40lists.gentoo.org/msg15043.html |
| 39 |
[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev%40lists.gentoo.org/msg15044.html |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives