| 1 |
On 19/06/2014 23:20, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> First thing: I understand why you want to go testing -> stable, but at |
| 4 |
>> least leave portage unstable. A *lot* of ancient stuff has been fixed in |
| 5 |
>> ~arch, it's perfectly safe and robust, and most especially all that |
| 6 |
>> stupid "no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in this slot" |
| 7 |
>> has gone away, replaced with something that a) works and b) makes sense |
| 8 |
>> and c) does not reduce the poor sysadmin (i.e you) to tears |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Stable is only three months older than ~arch, though it may very well |
| 11 |
> be much better (can't say I've used the ~arch version). Portage has |
| 12 |
> fortunately been keeping up much better on stable of late. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes, that is true. It's also the one package we Gentoo'ers use more |
| 15 |
often than anything else, so any non-optimumness shows up very quickly, |
| 16 |
and gets noticed. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> If there are packages that simply aren't acceptable in their stable |
| 20 |
> versions, I'd call that a bug... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I wouldn't go that far :-) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Stable portage gets the job done (after all, the stable code was in |
| 25 |
unstable for a long time and we all dealt with it OK). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As I see it, it's a simple question of effectively communicating the |
| 28 |
information that portage has to the user. If the dev wants to rate this |
| 29 |
as a bug then it's already fixed in ~arch and the next step is to |
| 30 |
stabilize that code |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives