On Friday, February 13, 2009 10:03:45 Peter Hjalmarsson wrote: > Could you please add that kind of information in the package.mask > comment? Just mention that it will go stable and hardened is not ready > for that yet should explain a whole lot more then the current comment, > that to be honest does not tell if it is a stabilization problem, a > security-problem, a compilation-problem or something totally diffrent.
I changed it but I'll argue that it doesn't matter and doesn't clarify anything wasn't already implied by virtue of simply existing in package.mask. It is an all-of-the-above problem because there's been zero official tests of glibc-2.8 with currently stabled packages in hardened. Part of the reason for stable and unstable is so that users don't have to pay attention to every detail and sometimes there are no details to give. Users who need/want to know every detail of everything that goes on need to get more involved. For everyone one item that is made an issue there are probably 87 more going on behinds the scenes that aren't known about and are never seen. Which proves the fact that users don't need everything that goes on verbosely announced in order to use their systems and keep up with upgrades. > Anyway, thanks for your hard work. We need more contributors, Hardened is barely hanging on. The few devs left can only allocate so much of their own time to the project. But that's another thread for another day. I will not answer any questions regarding this right now so don't ask - I simply lack the time for a spagetti thread. Just keep watching the ML. Gordon Malm (gengor)
