[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: prominent set of packages?
On Jun 21, 6:12pm, Jan =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A9mydke?= wrote:
} 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
} care more)
} 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).
STABLE is a basically a snapshot of -current (i.e. a tag, not a
branch) taken approximately every three months. The purpose of the
freeze (lasting approximately two weeks) is to fix bugs.
Unfortunately not all do get fixed, which means the bug will be carried
into the next stable.
} 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.
It would be helpful if one would invest time regardless. You can
do this in many ways: just using pkgsrc and reporting problems, fixing
broken packages and submitting the fixes, or updating packages.
}-- End of excerpt from Jan =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A9mydke?=
Main Index |
Thread Index |