| 1 |
On 2013-02-10, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 10/02/2013 19:25, Jarry wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> !!! Your current profile is deprecated and not supported anymore. |
| 6 |
>> !!! Use eselect profile to update your profile. |
| 7 |
>> !!! Please upgrade to the following profile if possible: |
| 8 |
>> default/linux/amd64/13.0 |
| 9 |
[...] |
| 10 |
>> So is server-profile not suported anymore??? I hope devs had |
| 11 |
>> good reason for this, but anyway a change like *this* should |
| 12 |
>> definitely be communicated with users in advance... |
| 13 |
[...] |
| 14 |
> [1] OK, the news items, or more specifically the lack of timeous news |
| 15 |
> items in advance. This is the second occurrence in recent times where |
| 16 |
> devs have had to do some back-pedalling, the first was udev with it's |
| 17 |
> TMPDEVFS fiasco. I myself am getting a teeny bit pissed off with this |
| 18 |
> now. I think a large collection of user should pen a nice polite letter |
| 19 |
> to whomever deals with such things asking for more attention to be paid |
| 20 |
> to QA matters like this. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
+1 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I have no doubts that devs have lots of work to do, but it's a rather |
| 25 |
serious situation if the difference between unstable and stable land is |
| 26 |
*not* used as an advantage when it comes to deal with situations like |
| 27 |
this and udev's kernel requirements and network rules. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I guess a good rule of thumb would be: if a stabilization/profile change |
| 30 |
or introduced error message will require users to change their settings |
| 31 |
by hand, change their kernel config to match new requirements in order |
| 32 |
to have an usable system or to treat some packages/flags in a different |
| 33 |
way, this should not go forward until a news item has been prepared to |
| 34 |
notify users about it. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Nuno Silva (aka njsg) |
| 38 |
http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/ |
Archives