On 19/06/2014 23:20, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> > wrote: >> First thing: I understand why you want to go testing -> stable, but at >> least leave portage unstable. A *lot* of ancient stuff has been fixed in >> ~arch, it's perfectly safe and robust, and most especially all that >> stupid "no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in this slot" >> has gone away, replaced with something that a) works and b) makes sense >> and c) does not reduce the poor sysadmin (i.e you) to tears > > Stable is only three months older than ~arch, though it may very well > be much better (can't say I've used the ~arch version). Portage has > fortunately been keeping up much better on stable of late.
Yes, that is true. It's also the one package we Gentoo'ers use more often than anything else, so any non-optimumness shows up very quickly, and gets noticed. > If there are packages that simply aren't acceptable in their stable > versions, I'd call that a bug... I wouldn't go that far :-) Stable portage gets the job done (after all, the stable code was in unstable for a long time and we all dealt with it OK). As I see it, it's a simple question of effectively communicating the information that portage has to the user. If the dev wants to rate this as a bug then it's already fixed in ~arch and the next step is to stabilize that code -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
