On Tuesday 10 February 2004 6:02 pm, Kurt V. Hindenburg wrote: > On Tuesday 10 February 2004 11:42 am, Jani-Matti H�tinen wrote: > | Kurt V. Hindenburg kirjoitti (sunnuntai, 8. helmikuuta 2004 23:07): > | > It should not have been made stable if there is a chance of > | > screwing up the entire portage system such that it will not > | > work... > | > | So, in other words no version of portage should ever be marked > | stable. Writing a piece of software that doesn't just work > > Only for software like sys-apps/portage. If portage is broken, then > the entire gentoo/portage is borked. I think it is not asking too > much that sys-apps/portage be handled with extra caution when marking > it stable.
Well if portage is broken you see the problem at once. But if the application you just emerged has a security hole you may not know until after your system and data has been totally destroyed. We all want perfect bug free software, but I am greatfull for the high quality that we do get. David -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
