| 1 |
On 09/29/2011 01:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, Gentoo! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Why are there so many packages whose versions never become stable? By |
| 5 |
> "many", I mean here at least two. :-) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> These are the kernel and Firefox. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> My kernel is currently 2.6.39-gentoo-r3, built on July 18. By examining |
| 10 |
> ebuilds, I now see that the ~amd64 is already up to 3.0.4-r1. I've |
| 11 |
> missed 3.0.[0-3], it seems. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> My Firefox is on 3.6.20. Firefox 4 and 5 never became stable, and their |
| 14 |
> ebuilds have disappeared already. Firefox 6 is still ~amd64. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It's rare that maintainers will support more than one stable version |
| 17 |
just because of the extra work involved. So, if e.g. version 2.1 of |
| 18 |
package foo is stable, 2.0 might as well be removed from the tree, |
| 19 |
especially if it was ~arch. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Some versions never get moved from ~arch to stable because if there's a |
| 22 |
newer version available, it makes sense to concentrate on stabilizing |
| 23 |
that one instead. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Firefox (>= 4) and the kernel (>= 3) are special cases, already |
| 26 |
explained by Michael Mol. |
Archives