Re: [gentoo-dev] DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future

2009-09-12 Thread Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sebastian Pipping wrote: Hello there! Among other information the Gentoo page at DistroWatch [1] displays a table on about 200 selected packages [2] and how up to date Gentoo is per package. I assume that DistroWatch is still one of the first

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future

2009-09-12 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Ryan Hill wrote: Personally I don't see how gaming the system helps us in any way. I was afraid it could be read in such a way. Handing out fake version numbers would be much easier, wouldn't it? I want every single package int he tree to be stable, up to date and polished. But as our

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: 2009.0 profiles

2009-09-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday 11 September 2009 19:48:03 George Prowse wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: ... Why not tie the the thing that makes Gentoo unique and one of the major reasons why users use it to the version numbers - Portage. We had 1.2, then 1.4 then 2004.0 and if i'm not mistaken portage is at

Re: [gentoo-dev] DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future

2009-09-12 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Aaron Bauman wrote: Sebastian, I definitely admire your point and know that through your tracking and Google SoC project you have good visibility on this I do however have to disagree. As much as I enjoy the open source community and admire the products they put out I do believe

Re: [gentoo-dev] DistroWatch and Gentoo packages: status quo and future

2009-09-12 Thread Sebastian Pipping
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: koffice (2.0.2) 1.6.3 There has been koffice-meta-2.0.2 for a while. Good catch, thank you! Sebastian