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 1GaZNG-0004th-Hz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:59:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9JEv7OO029524; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:57:07 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 k9JEswDO008396 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:54:59 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CEF26481C for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:54:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.511 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.088, 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 DBZ3Lx3OJKQT for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:54:46 +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 7959C647A9 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:54:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GaZHt-00040l-By for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:54:25 +0200 Received: from new.email-server.info ([213.133.109.44]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:54:25 +0200 Received: from listen by new.email-server.info with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:54:25 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Alexander Skwar Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync? Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:53:44 +0200 Message-ID: <7602499.SUhrU3Toya@work.message-center.info> References: <20061018033704.56943.qmail@web31713.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20061018185735.GA15031@math.princeton.edu> <6021544.Qtov4uBynZ@m-id.message-center.info> <200610181449.12060.bulliver@badcomputer.org> <1556722.K8zGttGTqY@work.message-center.info> 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=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: new.email-server.info User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 0075c74c-b173-4fea-95cd-8562d3938e6c X-Archives-Hash: 4c9ad84347a8f1876052e808ae6ca150 Devon Miller : > You both seem to be arguing about what constitutes stable. Yep. For emerge, all that matters is the tree. Nothing else is important - actually, nothing else exists, as overlays also become part of the tree, sort of. > And there are 2 > different definitions: stable as defined by the upstream source and stable > as defined in portage. Yep. The latter is all that matters for emerge. > Not appreciating the distinction, Maxim was asking why he's not getting the > latest stable (expecting the "upstream stable"). We don't know what Maxim expected. Hence my question. > Alexander's comments reflect the "portage stable", Yes. > but don't take in to > account that portage does not always keep up. As it doesn't matter to what emerge offers. > In fact, in this case it's > languished rather badly. Yes. > His issue is 0.9.1 and 0.9.2 should have been stable by now. I agree with this. > > So, while Alexander is technically correct, (emerge is doing exactly what it > should) Yep. I asked, why maxim expected a different result. > this not a good thing, because portage is still delivering older, > buggy code. Yep. > 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 Very good suggestion! Alexander Skwar -- * BenC wonders why he has upgraded to 3.3.5-1 before teh X maintainer -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list