Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Darren Kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>]

Quoth the Willie Wong
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:30:40AM -0700, Darren Kirby wrote:
> > > > Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be
> > > > different (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough?
> > >
> > > No, not good enough, as that doesn't matter at all. All that matters
> > > is, what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no matter
> > > what you think. The question remains: Why should a different version be
> > > offered?
> >
> > Sorry Alexander, I just don't get where you're going with this. Version
> > 0.8 was released September 27, 2004! There have been 4 major new releases
> > since then, which include many bug fixes, and new and improved features.
> > 0.8 is old and busted, 0.9.3 is the new hotness!
>
> Guys,
>
> Just to prevent the heat from escalating, may I offer my observation
> that the two of you seems to be arguing about completely different
> things?

Heat? I'm not mad, just confused ;)

> Alexander (and I, likewise) probably misunderstood Darren's question
> from the start: when he posted, I thought his expectation that "emerge
> dir2ogg" should bring in a newer version than what was offered was a
> lack of understanding of how the portage tree works (well, some of my
> friends do actually think that the package management system [aptget,
> rpm, portage, etc.] would actually be smart enough to automatically
> go on the internet and find and install the latest version of a
> program, so I wouldn't put any misconception past human capacity).

Please note Willie, I am not the original poster. I jumped in here because I 
wrote the script that the OP is asking about, and I agree the current stable 
version is long outdated.

That said, I _do_ realize that the OP was asking a flawed question. I was 
simply responding to Alexander: "Why do you think, that a different version 
should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?".

If he means "why should portage automatically go grab the newest upstream 
version", then I agree with his implication: it shouldn't. That's not what he 
wrote though. The wording of his comment reads like he is asking why portage 
should offer a more current version of the software, which is the source of 
my confusion. I don't think that anyone here will argue that the software in 
portage should stagnate on versions years out of date. 

> But it seems clear to me now that Darren is actually asking about
> whether it is polite to give the devs a gentle nudge, asking them
> to remove an old, buggy version of software from the portage tree
> and add/stablize newer, updated versions (and how to go about doing
> so if it is polite).

I already did give a gentle nudge ;)

> I am actually curious about the same thing: some of the packages that
> I use are also a year or two out of date, for the most part I can
> get around it by using overlays and third-party ebuilds, and I am
> making an effort to learn how to write ebuilds, but it would be nice
> to see those ebuilds committed to the official tree.

Open a bug (with severity 'enhancement') and ask for a version bump. If you 
can write an ebuild that has been tested and works, even better...

> W
> --
> Willie W. Wong                                     
> wwong@math.princeton.edu 408 Fine Hall,  Department of Mathematics, 
> Princeton University,  Princeton A mathematician's reputation rests on the
> number of bad proofs he has given.

-d
-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list