| 1 |
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 2 |
> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. That |
| 3 |
> means |
| 4 |
> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case |
| 7 |
> there |
| 8 |
> are problems". It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because |
| 9 |
> we |
| 10 |
> didn't even try it once". |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
You're experience is obviously different than mine. I've been using |
| 13 |
Gentoo for many years and sometimes things in unstable don't even |
| 14 |
compile... and it's obvious that the Gentoo developers didn't even |
| 15 |
attempt to compile it. This is par for the course. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And you're talking about a feature that is already documented as |
| 18 |
"probably won't work" and you're expecting them to test *that* given |
| 19 |
that they don't even test things that are expected to work?! |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Good luck with that. |
Archives