[uae] Stabilize or not?
- From: "Peter Volkov (pva)" <pva@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: uae@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:37:12 +0400
Hello Andrew.
On 2006-07-18 at 18:25 +0300, Andrew 'Truck' Holland wrote:
> Not that I get a vote, but I vote for "don't put it stable yet" - not
> with Richard working so diligently (along with others) on improving
> it. Sure, it's "stable" but it could break next update,
Of course you know e-uae software much better than me ;)
General policy in gentoo is new versions of ebuilds should be in
unstable branch only. So next version as it comes out will be unstable
for some period of time...
> and it IS beta (:
You are right. But it more or less works. Or... Did I miss anything?
Currently I hurry to mark stable only e-uae-0.8.28* because we already
have 0.8.27 stable on ppc and currently 0.8.27 version is broken: it
does not compile and is not ported to modular dependencies and of course
it's more stable than 0.8.27. At last I'd like to encourage users to use
0.8.28 :)
In general there are many packages in Linux that did not reach 1.0
version and even devs know that the package has currently a lot of bugs
and is unfinished. For example I maintain ebuild for net-im/sim package
that people use for many years, for many years they are happy with it,
and for many years they live with bugs that were not fixed... but sim is
included in many distributions (Debian, AltLinux) and in AltLinux sim is
in stable! So the reasonable question why gentoo should not have this
package and should not allow just `emerge sim`? The same situation is
with wine. wine is actively developed and regressions are not so rare
there. But wine-0.9.8 is stable. I think the same about e-uae.
And the last point. In general gentoo just follows upstream decision so
if Richard for some reasons thinks that we should not mark e-uae-0.8.28
stable then I'll remove stabilization request. What do you think
Richard?
With best regards,
Peter.
Other related posts:
- » [uae] Stabilize or not?
