| 1 |
Paul Hoy schreef: |
| 2 |
> See inline |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Aug 14, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Holly Bostick wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> Nick Rout schreef: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:12:31 -0700 |
| 10 |
>>> Zac Medico wrote: |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> Hi Paul, |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> Are we really far behind? That's difficult to believe. For what |
| 17 |
>>>> packages specifically? Do |
| 18 |
>>>> |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> you know how to unmask unstable packages (marked M or M~ at |
| 21 |
>>> packages.gentoo.org)? |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>>> Unstable does not really cut it IMHO. I am a gentoo enthusiast through |
| 24 |
>>> and through, but plonking something in portage with a ~ beside it does |
| 25 |
>>> not constitute a release of a recent version IMHO. |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> |
| 28 |
>> OK, I'll bite. What then do you consider "a release of a recent version" |
| 29 |
>> to be constituted from? |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I don't really understand your question. The most recent version to me |
| 33 |
> coincides to a release date closest to whatever today is. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
OK, so what you're saying is that an application's entry into Portage |
| 36 |
unstable does not constitute a 'release' of the package in Gentoo terms, |
| 37 |
as far as you're concerned? So until Firefox 1.0.6 and KDE 3.4.2 |
| 38 |
propagate down to stable (which could take time, admittedly), it's not |
| 39 |
actually released? Well, to each his or her own, I guess. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
>> If it's been released upstream, and it's in Portage a couple of hours |
| 43 |
>> later, so I can install it, I don't know what more you could want.... |
| 44 |
>> what, you want a Mandrake- (or worse, still, Debian) -style wait of |
| 45 |
>> months before you can use the upstream version? |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> I don't agree with you. There are many examples where a file that has |
| 49 |
> been released upstream has not found its way into Portage. I've |
| 50 |
> provided examples elsewhere in this thread. You can also compare with |
| 51 |
> the Fedora feedlist. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Yes, I know. I'm creating a list of interesting programs I've discovered |
| 54 |
that aren't in Portage or b.g.o, to practice my ebuild writing skills. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
But you know, I don't give the first hairy hoot about the Fedora |
| 57 |
feedlist. This idea that 'marking' a package 'stable' is some kind of |
| 58 |
magic bullet that actually *makes* the package stable is starting to get |
| 59 |
on my nerves a bit. What Gentoo marks or doesn't mark the package, or in |
| 60 |
fact whether or not it's in Portage, generally has nothing to do with |
| 61 |
the status of the package itself. There are plenty of perfectly stable |
| 62 |
packages in Gentoo unstable, plenty of stable ebuilds (meaning that they |
| 63 |
compile the application correctly, and beyond that point it depends on |
| 64 |
the upstream stability) in b.g.o, and even a few on breakmygentoo.org. |
| 65 |
And plenty of 'stable' packages that just act wonky in various ways as |
| 66 |
upstream manages the changes in whatever they're doing (migrating to the |
| 67 |
freedesktop standard, implementing DirectX 9 support, working around |
| 68 |
video driver bugs, kernel bugs, scheduler changes, you name it). |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
I use what I need, and I get what I need from wherever it may happen to |
| 71 |
be. Most of it comes from Portage, of course, but I've got some ebuilds |
| 72 |
in my overlay from b.g.o, a couple from Project Utopia, and some perl |
| 73 |
modules from cpan. It all works pretty well, and when it doesn't, I |
| 74 |
either ditch the package until it works a bit better, or fix it myself |
| 75 |
(and report what I had to do up the chain, if appropriate). It all looks |
| 76 |
a bit patchwork I suppose, but it's my patchwork, and so I know what |
| 77 |
sticky-out-bit goes where... most of the time. And I decide if there's |
| 78 |
going to be sticky-out-bits at all...there's no way, with an ATI card, |
| 79 |
that I'm going anywhere near the new modular X for quite a while, for |
| 80 |
example. But not because of Gentoo... because there's way too many |
| 81 |
upstream cooks for me to think they're going to concoct a 'stable' brew, |
| 82 |
*for me*, anytime soon. I said before and I do believe that the Gentoo |
| 83 |
dev team will do their very best (and that's damn good) to provide |
| 84 |
stable ebuilds that work as well as possible, but there's way too much |
| 85 |
whitewater flowing down the channel for me to believe that even they can |
| 86 |
successfully guide me through these difficult transitions. |
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
It just seems to me that if you want or expect a team of well-paid |
| 89 |
experts monitoring all possible inconveniences and smoothing them over |
| 90 |
before you even see them... well, then Fedora would be the place to be. |
| 91 |
Or SuSE. Gentoo or Ubuntu, on the other hand.... |
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
Holly |
| 94 |
-- |
| 95 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives