| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> 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 |
The 2.6.x has stabilized versions. 3.x has been kept masked, because |
| 14 |
even though it isn't significantly different from the latest 2.6.x, a |
| 15 |
lot of tools were shown to fall apart when they see 3.x.y rather than |
| 16 |
2.6.x. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> My Firefox is on 3.6.20. Firefox 4 and 5 never became stable, and their |
| 19 |
> ebuilds have disappeared already. Firefox 6 is still ~amd64. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
No idea. I switched to chromium, partly as a result of that. (I wasn't |
| 22 |
comfortable unmasking things yet...) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Am I being unreasonable feeling a bit peeved? I really don't want to |
| 25 |
> have to guess which "unstable" versions are actually "stable enough". |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You want a fun one? Take a look at ekiga. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Is this phenomenom something new, or am I just new enough myself that |
| 30 |
> I've never noticed before? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It's not new, I don't think, but it's somewhat dependent on the ebuild |
| 33 |
maintainer and changing conditions of the packages themselves. The |
| 34 |
kernel upstream broke things by changing its version numbering with |
| 35 |
little(?) warning. Firefox upstream has sorta broken things by |
| 36 |
switching to a rapid release cycle, and I suppose the ebuild |
| 37 |
maintainer hasn't caught up with the pattern shift. (Like anyone else |
| 38 |
who uses FF in an institutional setting has, either...) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
:wq |
Archives