From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Gadjz-0002CA-8D for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:39:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9JJbc11023667; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:37:38 GMT Received: from badcomputer.org (S010600065b9876b2.ok.shawcable.net [24.67.0.189] (may be forged)) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9JJZD2c010878 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:35:14 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.105] (helo=eden.badcomputer.org) by badcomputer.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Gadfm-0005vj-80 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:35:22 -0700 From: Darren Kirby Organization: Badcomputer Org. To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync? Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:37:08 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20061018033704.56943.qmail@web31713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1556722.K8zGttGTqY@work.message-center.info> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610191237.09003.bulliver@badcomputer.org> X-Archives-Salt: 7e580456-c848-4336-b5ca-d5bc4c9a76f8 X-Archives-Hash: 1cc864355c47176f7ba07377800d1765 Quoth the Devon Miller > You both seem to be arguing about what constitutes stable. And there are 2 > different definitions: stable as defined by the upstream source and stable > as defined in portage. Wrong. I am perfectly aware of what "stable" and "unstable" means to portage. I _was_ arguing a point based on Alexander's question which I felt was ambiguous. Apparently I am the only one who thought it was ambiguous, ha ha, stupid me. The entire rest of that sub-thread was me and Alexander arguing faulty premises based on this initial misunderstanding, and it would best be ignored by everyone. > Now, Darren has added a bug for 0.9.3 and a month later, it's still waiting > to get added to portage. > His issue is 0.9.1 and 0.9.2 should have been stable by now. That is an issue, but not one I am losing sleep over, and not one that I am arguing in this thread... If everyone folowing this thread from the sidelines could just read my first response to the OP: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/172487 You can see here I explained to the OP that the newer version was not stable, but he could access it using "~x86" keyword. I went on to explain that if he wanted the latest upstream version he could use an overlay. Mark my words: I _do not_ think the upstream stable version should, automatically or otherwise, be portage's stable version. I never said any such thing in any mail to this thread. > I would suggest Darren look through the develoiper list ( > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/userinfo.xml) for developers > handling media-sound. Add them to the cc list on the 0.9.2 ebuild and add a > comment asking that it be marked stable. And ask for the 0.9.3 to be added > as ~x86 I will try this. Thank you. > dcm -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