| 1 |
Martin, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Thursday, 2020-04-30 17:20:08 -0000, you wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> ... |
| 6 |
> > >=app-crypt/tpm2-tss-2.2.3-r1 ~amd64 |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Ah! That explains it. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > But this only means that I accept an unstable package here, not that |
| 11 |
> > these versions are regarded stable. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It is stabe according to the local configuration on your system. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I STRONGLY beg to disagree! The "~amd64" notation is used to ACCEPT a |
| 16 |
package even though it is (still) classified as UNSTABLE. And yes, the |
| 17 |
"{isunstable}" property does in fact still return "True". Phrases like |
| 18 |
the one above only try to conver-up sloppy programming, sloppy document- |
| 19 |
ation, or both. If "{!isstable}" isn't equivalent to "{isunstable}", |
| 20 |
there's a severe logical problem involved. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> What you look for is perhaps {wasstable} which returns the value |
| 23 |
> according to the default configuration. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That property is indeed mentioned in "man eix" but never explained, like |
| 26 |
plenty of other properties, too. Besides, in my book "was stable" sort |
| 27 |
of means "is no longer stable", but again, that's most probaly not what |
| 28 |
"{wasstable}" means in Eix-speak. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
But apart from that: you helped me solve my problem, and I thank you for |
| 31 |
that :-) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Sincerely, |
| 34 |
Rainer |
Archives