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 1GaJMP-0006ra-L2 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:54:02 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9ILnaJR030420; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:49:36 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9ILjVl2019901 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:45:31 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3706463A for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:45:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RXUbniQli716 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:45:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6205646CF for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:45:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GaJDi-0002qO-T7 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:45:03 +0200 Received: from mue-88-130-112-016.dsl.tropolys.de ([88.130.112.16]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:45:02 +0200 Received: from listen by mue-88-130-112-016.dsl.tropolys.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:45:02 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Alexander Skwar Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync? Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:37:26 +0200 Organization: =?UTF-8?B?LsK3Lg==?= Message-ID: <6148881.54eBfg2ClA@m-id.message-center.info> References: <20061018033704.56943.qmail@web31713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200610181130.40432.bulliver@badcomputer.org> <20061018185735.GA15031@math.princeton.edu> <200610181220.23071.bulliver@badcomputer.org> 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=utf-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: mue-88-130-112-016.dsl.tropolys.de User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id k9ILnaJt030420 X-Archives-Salt: 8311a328-33f8-43b9-8fea-96da33ce8b7e X-Archives-Hash: 6d55e17ef577520ceb37eb388754d256 =C2=B7 Darren Kirby : > 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 matte= rs >> > > is, what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no m= atter >> > > what you think. The question remains: Why should a different versi= on be >> > > offered? >> > >> > Sorry Alexander, I just don't get where you're going with this. Vers= ion >> > 0.8 was released September 27, 2004! There have been 4 major new rel= eases >> > since then, which include many bug fixes, and new and improved featu= res. >> > 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? >=20 > Heat? I'm not mad, just confused ;) >=20 >> 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). >=20 > Please note Willie, I am not the original poster. I jumped in here beca= use I=20 > wrote the script that the OP is asking about, and I agree the current s= table=20 > version is long outdated. >=20 > That said, I _do_ realize that the OP was asking a flawed question. I w= as=20 > simply responding to Alexander: "Why do you think, that a different ver= sion=20 > should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?". But with a wrong answer :) In the tree, the latest stable is 0.8, check out: . There *IS* no 0.9.3. Granted, there *should* be a 0.9.3 version, but there just isn't. And stable is 0.8, not even 0.9.2. As I wrote: Why does he think, that a different version than 0.8 should be offered, when he runs "emerge dir2ogg"? > If he means "why should portage automatically go grab the newest upstre= am=20 > version", then I agree with his implication: it shouldn't. That's what I wrote, yes. > That's not what he =20 > wrote though. It is. > The wording of his comment reads like he is asking why portage =20 > should offer a more current version of the software, That's what I asked maxim. Why does he think, that a different version, than the latest stable in-tree-version (ie. 0.8) should be offered when he runs "emerge dir2ogg"? Alexander Skwar --=20 All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy. --=20 gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list