In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Naulls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't recall exactly what John said, but firstly, let's not fragment
> and spread ourselves too thinly. We don't have hundreds or thousands of
> developers like Debian to look after different variations of packages
> not any particular reason to do so. Nor should we provide user
> confusion by naming things "unstable", with the ensuing explanations
> that'll be required. All we'll do in the end is ensure that such
> named software won't get tested.
I agree that the word "unstable" is not reflecting what we mean with it.
> The best anyone can ask or we can provide is a single distribution on
> a best effort basis. There might be older versions of software in
> that distribution, but that's ok too.
I'm feeling confident enough about the ELF static based builds but the
moment we're building with shared libs I think we better get those
application and libraries in a separate "testing" category until we feel
we don't have any major issues left.
I would go for "stable" & "testing" category like we also have with the
GCCSDK releases vs pre-releases.
> As for manual intervention, let's avoid that too, it'll just mean
> more manual effort later. If we can come up with more generic
> ways of doing things, even if the initial result takes longer,
> that'll be better for everyone.
I don't mind seeing a bit of extra effort done upfront if this is going
to pay off multiple times back later. I like the SCP idea and the package
website build happening on riscos.info.
John.
--
John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home BASS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ARM powered, RISC OS driven
_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list [email protected]
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
