| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:49 on Friday 08 October 2010, BRM did opine |
| 2 |
thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I noticed there have been a few Android SDK's in portage now for a while - |
| 5 |
> originally android-sdk, now android-sdk-update-manager |
| 6 |
> (http://packages.gentoo.org/package/dev-util/android-sdk-update-manager). |
| 7 |
> I know there is a bug on it - http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=320407 |
| 8 |
> - but that's the only one I can find. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Anyone have an idea on when some version might go stable? |
| 11 |
> There's 7 versions in portage and all are testing; the first (version 3) |
| 12 |
> goes back to November 2009. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
You should file a stabilisation request at b.g.o. they are likely not in |
| 16 |
testing because there's something wrong with them, they are probably in |
| 17 |
testing because nobody has bothered bumping them to stable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
However, considering the speed that Google are releasing Android versions, I |
| 20 |
think that the usual gentoo arch/~arch methodology is a bit of a joke in this |
| 21 |
case. If you didn't use the ebuilds, you'd be installing the latest sdk from |
| 22 |
google anyway, right? All the ebuild does is unpack a binary archive into |
| 23 |
/opt, nothing magic there, no real compelling need to wait for a stable |
| 24 |
version. And it doesn't need any ~arch deps either |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I say just be done with it, keyword the damn thing and install it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives