[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: prominent set of packages?
I thank to those who replied to me. I tried to build it anyway - and it
successfully did build! (why it failed on the buildbot...? - I don't
But from the replies I conclude that perhaps I didn't express the point
properly. I simply wanted to know whether I am alone with the idea of
the stable-branch policy:
> 5. I, IMHO, would (stupidly) expect from a respected OS to guarantee
> in some minimal extent that after a stable-branch update a user would
> not end up with a broken system if it used to work so far.
> I would expect that if such a package in CURRENT fails to build again
> - it shouldn't get to STABLE and other problematic packages
> should be kept at their usable state (no need to have the newest
> version breaking sth important).
Now that I have checked the OOO did build successfully (for me at
least), the question becomes a bit irrelevant. Anyway I am curious what
is the posture of the pkgsrc people to this. And if you feel my idea is
too restrictive, do you think
> 6. It's an uneasy question which set of packages should be guarded as
> "prominent" or the most important. But at least if SOME list is given,
> everybody can decide if he/she is going to invest time in pkgsrc.
is a noticeable idea to help pkgsrc?
I am grateful for any comment to this from you - thank you!
Main Index |
Thread Index |