On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:11:32 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Jeroen Roovers posted on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:40:45 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:44:42 +0400
> > Peter Volkov <p...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Also speaking about this specific package: I've maintained this
> >> package quite long time and I'm following upstream mailing list
> >> and I've never heard from upstream it's safe to push betas on all
> >> users.
> >
> > I didn't push it on all users. Maybe ~arch users, but they get to
> > keep the pieces when they break their systems, if I recall
> > correctly.
>
> To some extent, yes.
No, to the full extent. I didn't push it on all users. Read that bit
again and don't try to hijack the thread for another one of your
explanatory fits. Thank you.
pva has a point in that I could have package.masked it. Maybe I should
have. I felt I didn't need to, and some others responded. pva and I are
both in netmon so we can heartily disagree as long as we ultimately get
along and get the job done.
> However, Gentoo policy has always been that even ~arch is only
> upstream- stable packages, the ~arch keyword denoting Gentoo package
> testing (basically, the ebuild script and dependencies), /not/
> upstream testing. In with certain exceptions, in particular for
> packages where Gentoo itself is upstream, if it's not a package that
> could at least in theory be Gentoo- stable if no bugs appear during
> the 30-day standard stabilizing period, it's not supposed to be ~arch
> keyworded either.
This doesn't even make sense.
> That's an important distinction to make.
What is? No, don't answer that one.
jer
