| 1 |
Richard Fish wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 9/3/06, b.n. <brullonulla@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Ah, the mystery of why are things marked stable... |
| 4 |
>> If fixes for 4.1.1 are in ~arch, why is 4.1.1 in arch? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> For the benefit of the (hopefully, vast majority of) users not |
| 7 |
> affected by this. It should only be a few, seldom-used packages that |
| 8 |
> have this problem. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I don't get it. A given arch system should be self consistent. An ~arch |
| 11 |
system in theory should be too, but being testing I understand it can not. |
| 12 |
The purpose of being on arch should be "having a self consistent system |
| 13 |
within itself" not "having a mostly working bunch of packages". The few, |
| 14 |
seldom-used packages could be the *critical* packages for a given user |
| 15 |
(I think to some scientific packages, for example... not many use them, |
| 16 |
but they can be the very reason to have Linux for someone) Shouldn't all |
| 17 |
stable packages being tested with a given compiler before that compiler |
| 18 |
becomes stable? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
m. |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives