Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:34:21 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Well, then, perhaps the developer handbook and devmanual versions make sense to you: Stop throwing the book at me, please. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:44:42 +0400 Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org wrote: Also speaking about this specific package: I've maintained this package quite long time and I'm following upstream mailing list and I've never heard from upstream it's safe to push betas on all users. I didn't push it on all users. Maybe ~arch users, but they get to keep the pieces when they break their systems, if I recall correctly. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400 Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org wrote: В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 06:03 +, Jeroen Roovers (jer) пишет: jer 10/10/29 06:03:08 Modified: ChangeLog Added:tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild Log: Beta version bump, fixes buffer overflow (bug #336605). Please, hard mask beta versions. To fix this bug it's not hard to backport patch (patch referenced in bug) and this will give us good version to stabilize. Really don't abuse beta versions. I see you've done that already. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400 Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org wrote: Please, hard mask beta versions. I personally don't see a reason why he needed to do that. If a particular package was a popular one and/or the beta version changed a lot which might imply a lot of users getting trouble due to it, then I would agree. Please notice that 'beta' is not the same for each upstream. There are indeed packages which are in 'beta' state for the time being -- would you like all of them to be hard masked? Or maybe you're fine with them because they don't put 'beta' in their PV? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 07:29:07PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400 Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org wrote: Please, hard mask beta versions. I personally don't see a reason why he needed to do that. If a particular package was a popular one and/or the beta version changed a lot which might imply a lot of users getting trouble due to it, then I would agree. I don't know or use this package, but I agree. Just because something is beta doesn't mean it should be automatically hard masked. That decision should be left to the maintainer. William pgpsGU0GuTPuQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 19:29 +0200, Michał Górny пишет: On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:12:38 +0400 Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org wrote: Please, hard mask beta versions. I personally don't see a reason why he needed to do that. If a particular package was a popular one and/or the beta version changed a lot which might imply a lot of users getting trouble due to it, then I would agree. If the package is not popular there is even more reasons to rely on the upstream's judgment and hard mask betas. Please notice that 'beta' is not the same for each upstream. There are indeed packages which are in 'beta' state for the time being -- would you like all of them to be hard masked? Until you have explicit go for it from upstream or there is no real pressure to use betas, please, hard mask them. Or maybe you're fine with them because they don't put 'beta' in their PV? I'm fine in case upstream released package for general usage and we use them. I'm not fine in case package name suggests that package is for testing but we push it on users. Beta is beta. And for the sake of discussion I already had not so nice talks with upstream about Gentoo and beta versions we push on users... So this request is not out of the air. -- Peter.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-analyzer/tcpreplay: ChangeLog tcpreplay-3.4.5_beta2.ebuild
В Птн, 29/10/2010 в 17:51 +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет: Il giorno ven, 29/10/2010 alle 12.12 +0400, Peter Volkov ha scritto: Please, hard mask beta versions. To fix this bug it's not hard to backport patch (patch referenced in bug) and this will give us good version to stabilize. Really don't abuse beta versions. It vastly depends how beta the beta version is, so it's up to the maintainer deciding that. Yup. But then, please, tell what were the reasons for this decision (in ChangeLog or inside ebuild). If there are no reasons - hard mask it. Also speaking about this specific package: I've maintained this package quite long time and I'm following upstream mailing list and I've never heard from upstream it's safe to push betas on all users. -- Peter.
