Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On 5/4/06, Bart Braem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What makes us think we can not trust the KDE devs? 1. bugs.gentoo.org 2. bugs.kde.org I personally have been running KDE 3.5 since the RC days...when you actually had to add it to package.unmask. And *yes*, it has had more than it's share of problems. Even 3.5.1 had an annoying bug that caused a kicker segfault every time I logged out. 3.5.2 is the first 3.5 that seems completely stable. Honestly, if you want it so badly, add the necessary entries to package.keywords, merge it, and be happy. What is this obsession with pushing the Gentoo devs to mark things stable before they feel it is right to do so?? Is it just some pointless quest to have a completely stable system?? -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On 5/5/06, Philip Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile or breaks badly in so many places. This is rubbish: I'm now using 3.5.2 have had no problems whatsoever; nor did I have problems earlier with 3.5.0 3.5.1 . Not rubbish. I had problems. So did many others. Fortunately mine were of the just annoying variety, not of the crap, did I make a backup last night? kind. If you don't believe me, take a walk through bugs.kde.org. The Gentoo devs have done the right thing by holding back on stabilizing KDE. -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700 Michael Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This leads to people trying to maintain a frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keywords file, constantly adding to it and never knowing when things can be removed from it. If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do =category/package-version-revision ~arch instead of category/package ~arch, this doesn't happen. You just need to watch for downgrades in case a ~arch version is removed without ever going stable, and every so often go through it looking for package versions that have been superseded. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile or breaks badly in so many places. This is rubbish: I'm now using 3.5.2 have had no problems whatsoever; nor did I have problems earlier with 3.5.0 3.5.1 . -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
060505 Jakub Moc wrote: Philip Webb wrote: 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile or breaks badly in so many places. This is rubbish: I'm now using 3.5.2 have had no problems whatsoever; nor did I have problems earlier with 3.5.0 3.5.1 . Oh, sure it's complete rubbish... there are only ~40 bugs open right now about KDE 3.5 (on a quick and definitely incomplete search). The fixed/upstream ones would definitely be well over 100, don't have any good query for that. Well, if you're going to wait for all bugs with all KDE packages on all platforms to be fixed, you'll never stabilise any new KDE version. It's time developers started thinking a bit more like users: which version of KDE do you use everyday ? http://tinyurl.com/rg55l 122121 x86-64 ; 121270 can't reproduce (twice); 114860 kmail (I don't use Kmail, which is 1 modular package). I don't have time to go through them all, but that's the 1st 3 I picked. These are not reasons to keep the majority of KDE packages in ~x86 . But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE packages which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 . It's time the developers started listening to users in this area: we really do appreciate your volunteer work, but without users that work would all be pointless. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Philip Webb wrote: But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE packages which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 . It's time the developers started listening to users in this area: we really do appreciate your volunteer work, but without users that work would all be pointless. It's been explained many times that the fact that *you* didn't have any problems whatsoever is completely *irrelevant*, at least until *you* are the only Gentoo KDE user. Please, read what other people have said and don't waste our time with completely invalid arguments. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On 05/05/06, Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Philip Webb wrote: 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile or breaks badly in so many places. This is rubbish: I'm now using 3.5.2 have had no problems whatsoever; nor did I have problems earlier with 3.5.0 3.5.1 . Oh, sure it's complete rubbish... there are only ~40 bugs open right now about KDE 3.5 (on a quick and definitely incomplete search). The fixed/upstream ones would definitely be well over 100, don't have any good query for that. http://tinyurl.com/rg55l But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P KDE 3.4 has at least 31 open bugs on a quick and incomplete search. http://tinyurl.com/mzzoo -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 01:11, Jakub Moc wrote: Philip Webb wrote: But yeah, you know better, no problems whatsoever. :P Yes, I know better: I haven't had any problems with any of the KDE packages which I have installed with versions 3.5.0 3.5.1 3.5.2 . It's time the developers started listening to users in this area: we really do appreciate your volunteer work, but without users that work would all be pointless. It's been explained many times that the fact that *you* didn't have any problems whatsoever is completely *irrelevant*, at least until *you* are the only Gentoo KDE user. Please, read what other people have said and don't waste our time with completely invalid arguments. The vast majority of KDE users, Gentoo or no, are not having problems with KDE 3.5. Does it not make sense for the defaults to accommodate the majority, with workarounds for the minority, rather than the other way around? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do =category/package-version-revision ~arch instead of category/package ~arch, this doesn't happen. Hardcoding specific ~arch versions or revisions unless absolutely needed is a bad idea. Remember that we don't do GLSA's for testing stuff. If bleeding edge, then bleeding edge. Carsten pgpNXSLqBYpEO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:29:56 -0700 Michael Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would suggest opening a middle ground tag, where things can be moved to from ~arch when they work for reasonable configuration values, but still have open bugs for some people. More work for devs, yay!/sarcasm Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:20:09 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 05 May 2006 08:32, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: If you use specific versions in the package.keywords file (i.e. do =category/package-version-revision ~arch instead of category/package ~arch, this doesn't happen. Hardcoding specific ~arch versions or revisions unless absolutely needed is a bad idea. Remember that we don't do GLSA's for testing stuff. If bleeding edge, then bleeding edge. I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch. If I want something from ~arch, it's for one of two reasons: 1) There's a feature/fix that I need now 2) I want to try out a new version of something for fun I certainly don't want to take everything from ~arch; that way leads to regular system instability. In practice, I tend to do: =category/package-version* ~arch so that I pick up -rN bumps on unstable versions as this should mean that the maintainer considers the change necessary for users of that version. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch. No. My argument is that category/ebuild is much better than =category/ebuild-x*. If and only if there's a problem with the former, you should take the latter into account and monitor the ebuild changes closely. In practice, I tend to do: =category/package-version* ~arch so that I pick up -rN bumps on unstable versions as this should mean that the maintainer considers the change necessary for users of that version. So you won't get security updates, when this means it is a version bump. And this is most often the case. Unless you _always_ read the ChangeLogs and referenced bugs of all ebuilds you run testing, this is not safe. Carsten pgpjltTGPFPD2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Fri, 5 May 2006 16:38:57 +0200 Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch. No. My argument is that category/ebuild is much better than =category/ebuild-x*. If and only if there's a problem with the former, you should take the latter into account and monitor the ebuild changes closely. From my perspective, category/package is worse. It means once a package goes ~arch, it never becomes arch again. My approach means that when I've gone ~arch to get something only available in that version, it becomes arch once the package gets stabilised or a later version is stabilised. In practice, I tend to do: =category/package-version* ~arch so that I pick up -rN bumps on unstable versions as this should mean that the maintainer considers the change necessary for users of that version. So you won't get security updates, when this means it is a version bump. And this is most often the case. Unless you _always_ read the ChangeLogs and referenced bugs of all ebuilds you run testing, this is not safe. First, I'll get the security updates when (1) the relevant updated package goes stable, which is usually pretty quickly, or (2) notification is made in gentoo-announce (which must be the correct place to get such notifications). Secondly, Up-to-date on GLSAs != safe. Not by a long shot. Further, missing GLSAs does not necessarily mean I'm vulnerable. That's what the detail is for in the GLSAs; so I can make a judgement call on whether I need to worry about a vulnerability or not. Lastly, if there are versions of a package in ~arch that have known security flaws, my understanding is that they either get patched with a -rN bump, or they get removed from the tree in favour of a later version that is not vulnerable. Either way, I get notification when I next do an update. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 15:23 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: In practice, I tend to do: =category/package-version* ~arch ~category/package-version ~arch *grin* -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 20:37, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: First, I'll get the security updates when (1) the relevant updated package goes stable, which is usually pretty quickly, or (2) notification is made in gentoo-announce (which must be the correct place to get such notifications). That they go stable quickly is a bet and not always true. When there never was an stable ebuild, there won't be an announcement. Secondly, Up-to-date on GLSAs != safe. Not by a long shot. Further, missing GLSAs does not necessarily mean I'm vulnerable. That's what the detail is for in the GLSAs; so I can make a judgement call on whether I need to worry about a vulnerability or not. It's a difference, if you can trust on a security team taking care or if you have to do it all yourself. That there will never be 100% perfect security is a different topic. Lastly, if there are versions of a package in ~arch that have known security flaws, my understanding is that they either get patched with a -rN bump, or they get removed from the tree in favour of a later version that is not vulnerable. Either way, I get notification when I next do an update. That previous ebuilds get removed is another bet, I wouldn't make. You claim Up-to-date on GLSAs != safe (which isn't wrong of course), but base your dealing with possible vulnerabilities on assumptions. That doesn't match. Carsten pgpgVn7uk3Atu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Friday 05 May 2006 02:14, Philip Webb wrote: 060504 Chris Gianelloni wrote: If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile or breaks badly in so many places. This is rubbish: I'm now using 3.5.2 have had no problems whatsoever; nor did I have problems earlier with 3.5.0 3.5.1 . Your lucky, Kmail crashes daily.. Akregator is buggy too. I have seen lots of stuff. Jeff pgpV8NDHyHCZc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Philip Webb wrote: My solution is a line in .bashrc : 'alias emergeu='ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 emerge' , Don't do that. Try to do a search on why is ACCEPT_KEYWORDS emerge bad. which allows me to emerge a testing version on a specific occasion. The package.keywords alternative is silly, as there's no reason anyone would want to do it regularly for a package, Please RTFM [1]. You'll learn that you are allowed to use (not limited to) versioned identifiers, for example. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3chap=3#doc_chap2_sect2 Cheers. -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
All,If I might weigh in at this late stage:How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch that we can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get lots of I set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now my system is broken, messages, but if people are going to try ~arch, or Gentoo in general, despite warnings that it's not for newbies (and I have personal experience of this), we can't really stop them without turning the community into a fascist state, can we? Gentoo (like all projects) has a finite amount of developers, and if we spend to much time on ~arch then surely arch will suffer Just my 0.2 cents (sic)Jeff.On 04/05/06, Bart Braem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (sorry if you receive this mail twice, my subscription was not ok)Philip Webb wrote: 060404 Caleb Tennis wrote: historically we were much more bleeding edge with our stable KDE versions, but if you've spent any significant time playing with 3.5.0 or 3.5.1, you would agree that they are terribly less stable than 3.4.3. Not here ! I've used both (successively) every day can't recall a single crash or noteworthy (indeed any) problem. It's true that I don't use Kmail similar exchange-type apps some comments suggest that is where the bulk of instability lies. The fact that KDE itself is no longer accepting bugs for 3.4.3 really does suggest there's something wrong with Gentoo's current criteria.As a user I have to add my opinion here. I have been using Gentoo for someyears now and it was always fairly up to date. Currently KDE is reallybehind on the current situation upstream. And then I wonder why. What makes us think we can not trust the KDE devs?Does compiling KDE introduce so many bugs? I mean, let's be serious, allother distributions have a stable 3.5.x now. Don't they experience all those horrible bugs?Seriously, this is really becoming an issue. As I pointed out in a bug Ifiled for a stable KDE (for which I apologize, I should have looked herefirst), some people are leaving Gentoo because of this slow upgrade process.The classical answer from devs is it's ready when it's ready. From a userpoint of view this is very, very vague. Please give users a more clearexplanation, this creates great frustration when looking at other distributions. Because it's stable there.These are my 2 cents as a user. One that loves Gentoo. One that loves KDE.One that's frustrated by the current situation. I am a CS so I know howhard programming can be, don't get me wrong there. I do appreciate what you guys do. But I can't understand why you do it this way right now.Bart--gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- --Argument against Linux number 6,033:...So this is like most Linux viruses. You have to download the virus yourself, become root, install it and then run it. Seems like a lot of work just to experience what you can get on Windows with a lot less trouble.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
I think that sums up some good answers to my questions, too.Jeff.On 04/05/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 13:48 +0200, Bart Braem wrote: Does compiling KDE introduce so many bugs? I mean, let's be serious, all other distributions have a stable 3.5.x now. Don't they experience all those horrible bugs?Compiling KDE doesn't introduce bugs.Compiling KDE with anycombination of USE/CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/GCC/Glibc/etc does.Remember that we're a from-source distribution.Guys like Debian or Red Hat just haveto compile it *once* then they make a package of it, with exactly *one*set of options (USE), C(XX)FLAGS, gcc, glibc, etc. making their job infinitely easier. Seriously, this is really becoming an issue. As I pointed out in a bug I filed for a stable KDE (for which I apologize, I should have looked here first), some people are leaving Gentoo because of this slow upgrade process.Honestly, if they're leaving over something so minor, they're free togo.We're not a commercial distribution.We don't sell Gentoo.We'renot concerned with market share. The classical answer from devs is it's ready when it's ready. From a user point of view this is very, very vague. Please give users a more clear explanation, this creates great frustration when looking at other distributions. Because it's stable there.As I stated above, they have a *much* lower barrier of entry for making something stable than we do.We've tried making this explanation overand over again.The problem is that every single version of $package,people don't look at the last explanation and ask again... and again... and again... and again.It gets very old to answer the same questionover and over again.The simple answer is really when we don't havemajor showstopper bugs anymore.Again, remember that we have to support countless combinations from our users.Other distributions needto support only one.They can use forms of tricks to get it to compilethat *one* time, including adding patches and other things that might not be suitable for a from-source distribution. These are my 2 cents as a user. One that loves Gentoo. One that loves KDE. One that's frustrated by the current situation. I am a CS so I know how hard programming can be, don't get me wrong there. I do appreciate what you guys do. But I can't understand why you do it this way right now.Quite simply, we don't want to give you crap.If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE userswould be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compileor breaks badly in so many places.We would hear about how Gentoo sucks where they can't even test such a major application as KDE properly.Wewould have users leaving in droves.Now, we can't have both faststabilization *and* actual stability, so we err on the side of caution. We don't like hearing complaints any more than anyone else, but we'drather hear a few why isn't KDE stable yet questions than *everyone*saying we suck because KDE is broken.I hope that sums it up for you. By the way, this isn't just for KDE.This is how we do *every* package.--Chris GianelloniRelease Engineering - Strategic Leadx86 Architecture TeamGames - DeveloperGentoo Linux -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBEWfErkT4lNIS36YERAtKVAKDE9aVxS6dq34fleM1WPi2vOC9TGgCfb+ctGhTF595T05xwiL60103fkAk==YYvC-END PGP SIGNATURE- -- --Argument against Linux number 6,033:...So this is like most Linux viruses. You have to download the virus yourself, become root, install it and then run it. Seems like a lot of work just to experience what you can get on Windows with a lot less trouble.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Thursday 04 May 2006 14:21, Jeff Rollin wrote: All, If I might weigh in at this late stage: How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch that we can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get lots of I set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now my system is broken, messages, but if people are going to try ~arch, or Gentoo in general, despite warnings that it's not for newbies (and I have personal experience of this), we can't really stop them without turning the community into a fascist state, can we? Gentoo (like all projects) has a finite amount of developers, and if we spend to much time on ~arch then surely arch will suffer Actually the testing keywords are not for unstable packages. If something is unstable it must be masked. If we however want to test our packaging we put it in ~arch. If something is in ~arch that means that it works for the packager, but that your mileage may vary. ~arch may sometimes have unexpected problems, especially involving migration from old versions to new versions. Actually most time is spent on ~arch, as there is where development happens. As a package is seen to be stable, then it gets promoted to arch. This is just a change of the keyword. The developer then goes on to newer versions of the package. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgp3RB0vTgeMO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
I'm just an user here, but I'd like to ask a simple question: For Gnome 2.14 there is a tracker bug on b.g.o [1]. I think this is really usefull for users like me who want to know the status of this release at any time (and I hope this is useful for devs too :)). Why such a tracker doesn't exist for KDE 3.5 ? That way, users may easily see why KDE still isn't stable. Please don't take this as a reproach. Perhaps you devs have no need for a tracker, and I can perfectly understand that. Regards, Guillaume [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119872 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
Paul, That cleared it up for me, thanks Jeff.On 04/05/06, Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually the testing keywords are not for unstable packages. If somethingis unstable it must be masked. If we however want to test our packagingwe put it in ~arch. If something is in ~arch that means that it works for the packager, but that your mileage may vary. ~arch may sometimes haveunexpected problems, especially involving migration from old versions tonew versions. Actually most time is spent on ~arch, as there is where development happens. As a package is seen to be stable, then it getspromoted to arch. This is just a change of the keyword. The developerthen goes on to newer versions of the package.Paul-- Paul de VriezeGentoo DeveloperMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net -- --Argument against Linux number 6,033:...So this is like most Linux viruses. You have to download the virus yourself, become root, install it and then run it. Seems like a lot of work just to experience what you can get on Windows with a lot less trouble.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
On Thursday 04 May 2006 05:21, Jeff Rollin wrote: All, If I might weigh in at this late stage: How did we end up here in the first place? Isn't the point of ~arch that we can put stuff here that might WELL be unstable? Sure, we'll get lots of I set my ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch and now my system is broken, messages, but if people are going to try ~arch, or Gentoo in general, despite warnings that it's not for newbies (and I have personal experience of this), we can't really stop them without turning the community into a fascist state, can we? Gentoo (like all projects) has a finite amount of developers, and if we spend to much time on ~arch then surely arch will suffer Just my 0.2 cents (sic) Jeff. I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap the Debian project has been mired in forever. arch and ~arch are polarizing into stable, but horribly out of date, and maybe it will work. This leads to people trying to maintain a frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keywords file, constantly adding to it and never knowing when things can be removed from it. I would suggest opening a middle ground tag, where things can be moved to from ~arch when they work for reasonable configuration values, but still have open bugs for some people. That way, people who prefer stability over the latest features can run arch, and everyone who bitches about packages being out of date can run the middle tag, and ~arch can be kept for testing. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: When will KDE 3.5 be marked as stable?
I think the problem is that Gentoo is falling into the same sandtrap the Debian project has been mired in forever. arch and ~arch are polarizinginto stable, but horribly out of date, and maybe it will work.This leads to people trying to maintain a frankenstinian /etc/portage/package.keywords file, constantly adding to itand never knowing when things can be removed from it.I would suggest opening a middle ground tag, where things can be moved to from ~arch when they work for reasonable configuration values, but still haveopen bugs for some people.That way, people who prefer stability over the latest features can run arch,and everyone who bitches about packages being out of date can run the middle tag, and ~arch can be kept for testing.--gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing listOr maybe we could move to a fixed release cycle. Debian uses 18 (?) months, but maybe a 3- or 6-month release cycle would suit us better Jeff.-- --Argument against Linux number 6,033:...So this is like most Linux viruses. You have to download the virus yourself, become root, install it and then run it. Seems like a lot of work just to experience what you can get on Windows with a lot less trouble.
