В Сбт, 05/01/2008 в 18:17 -0600, Ryan Hill пишет: > I don't know, I can kinda see both sides. Alt arches tend to be finicky > so it's important that updates are well tested on them. Also they're > more prone to break during upgrades, not only because they're more > fragile but because upstream is far less likely to have tested on them, > so I can see why having a stable tree is important.
If this is an issue arch developers should tell us that. Problems with having slacker archs are: open bugs in bugzilla and old ebuilds which are unsupported by maintainer[1]. Open bug just takes my time and attention to open it and to find out that we already fixed that bug and wait for arch to take their action. Old ebuilds they leave me without satisfaction and lie to our users - I know that they are broken, but they are still in the tree and are marked as stable. Open bugs problem can't be solved until we fix problem with old ebuilds because ordinary for broken/old ebuilds I keep herd/myself in CC of bug until it's closed to drop old ebuild from the tree. And for me the problem with old ebuilds could be solved if I could drop keywords from old ebuilds. Then I could remove herd/myself from CC to bug. Also if council decide this way I'd like to see recommendation for slacker arch to drop old ebuild (with none keywords except ~arch) from the tree by themselves as soon as they stabilize new version. [1] And security problem could be solved by labeling arch as security unsupported. -- Peter.
signature.asc
Description: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью
