On 2013-02-10, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 10/02/2013 19:25, Jarry wrote: > >> !!! Your current profile is deprecated and not supported anymore. >> !!! Use eselect profile to update your profile. >> !!! Please upgrade to the following profile if possible: >> default/linux/amd64/13.0 [...] >> So is server-profile not suported anymore??? I hope devs had >> good reason for this, but anyway a change like *this* should >> definitely be communicated with users in advance... [...] > [1] OK, the news items, or more specifically the lack of timeous news > items in advance. This is the second occurrence in recent times where > devs have had to do some back-pedalling, the first was udev with it's > TMPDEVFS fiasco. I myself am getting a teeny bit pissed off with this > now. I think a large collection of user should pen a nice polite letter > to whomever deals with such things asking for more attention to be paid > to QA matters like this.
+1 I have no doubts that devs have lots of work to do, but it's a rather serious situation if the difference between unstable and stable land is *not* used as an advantage when it comes to deal with situations like this and udev's kernel requirements and network rules. I guess a good rule of thumb would be: if a stabilization/profile change or introduced error message will require users to change their settings by hand, change their kernel config to match new requirements in order to have an usable system or to treat some packages/flags in a different way, this should not go forward until a news item has been prepared to notify users about it. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
