1 |
· Darren Kirby <bulliver@×××××××××××.org>: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Quoth the Willie Wong |
4 |
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:30:40AM -0700, Darren Kirby wrote: |
5 |
>> > > > Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be |
6 |
>> > > > different (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough? |
7 |
>> > > |
8 |
>> > > No, not good enough, as that doesn't matter at all. All that matters |
9 |
>> > > is, what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no matter |
10 |
>> > > what you think. The question remains: Why should a different version be |
11 |
>> > > offered? |
12 |
>> > |
13 |
>> > Sorry Alexander, I just don't get where you're going with this. Version |
14 |
>> > 0.8 was released September 27, 2004! There have been 4 major new releases |
15 |
>> > since then, which include many bug fixes, and new and improved features. |
16 |
>> > 0.8 is old and busted, 0.9.3 is the new hotness! |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> Guys, |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> Just to prevent the heat from escalating, may I offer my observation |
21 |
>> that the two of you seems to be arguing about completely different |
22 |
>> things? |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Heat? I'm not mad, just confused ;) |
25 |
> |
26 |
>> Alexander (and I, likewise) probably misunderstood Darren's question |
27 |
>> from the start: when he posted, I thought his expectation that "emerge |
28 |
>> dir2ogg" should bring in a newer version than what was offered was a |
29 |
>> lack of understanding of how the portage tree works (well, some of my |
30 |
>> friends do actually think that the package management system [aptget, |
31 |
>> rpm, portage, etc.] would actually be smart enough to automatically |
32 |
>> go on the internet and find and install the latest version of a |
33 |
>> program, so I wouldn't put any misconception past human capacity). |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Please note Willie, I am not the original poster. I jumped in here because I |
36 |
> wrote the script that the OP is asking about, and I agree the current stable |
37 |
> version is long outdated. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> That said, I _do_ realize that the OP was asking a flawed question. I was |
40 |
> simply responding to Alexander: "Why do you think, that a different version |
41 |
> should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?". |
42 |
|
43 |
But with a wrong answer :) In the tree, the latest stable is 0.8, check |
44 |
out: <http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=dir2ogg>. There *IS* |
45 |
no 0.9.3. Granted, there *should* be a 0.9.3 version, but there just |
46 |
isn't. And stable is 0.8, not even 0.9.2. |
47 |
|
48 |
As I wrote: Why does he think, that a different version than 0.8 should |
49 |
be offered, when he runs "emerge dir2ogg"? |
50 |
|
51 |
> If he means "why should portage automatically go grab the newest upstream |
52 |
> version", then I agree with his implication: it shouldn't. |
53 |
|
54 |
That's what I wrote, yes. |
55 |
|
56 |
> That's not what he |
57 |
> wrote though. |
58 |
|
59 |
It is. |
60 |
|
61 |
> The wording of his comment reads like he is asking why portage |
62 |
> should offer a more current version of the software, |
63 |
|
64 |
That's what I asked maxim. Why does he think, that a different version, |
65 |
than the latest stable in-tree-version (ie. 0.8) should be offered |
66 |
when he runs "emerge dir2ogg"? |
67 |
|
68 |
Alexander Skwar |
69 |
-- |
70 |
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy. |
71 |
|
72 |
|
73 |
-- |
74 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |