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.<br><br>In this case, the "upstream stable" is 0.9.3 and the "portage stable" os 0.8.<br><br>Not appreciating the distinction, Maxim was asking why he's not getting the latest stable (expecting the "upstream stable").<br><br>Alexander's comments reflect the "portage stable", but don't take in to account that portage does not always keep up. In fact, in this case it's languished rather badly. <br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">0.9.1 was added to bugzilla (<a href="http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87626">http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87626</a>) in Apr-05<br>It looks like it was added to portage in Nov-05 <br>It's been in portage for 11 months, with no bugs filed against it, and it's still ~x86.<br><br>0.9.2 was added to bugzilla (<a href="http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=">http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=</a> ) in Dec-05<br>It l was added to portage in Feb-06<br>It's been in portage for 8 months, with no bugs filed against it, and it's still ~x86.<br></div> <br>Now, Darren has added a bug for 0.9.3 and a month later, it's still waiting to get added to portage.<br>His issue is 0.9.1 and 0.9.2 should have been stable by now.<br><br>So, while Alexander is technically correct, (emerge is doing exactly what it should) this not a good thing, because portage is still delivering older, buggy code. Unfortunately, getting ebuilds marked stable requires the intervention of a Gentoo developer and while the documentation says what *should* happen, it does not say what to do when something falls through the cracks. <br><br>I would suggest Darren look through the develoiper list (<a href="http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/userinfo.xml">http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/userinfo.xml</a>) 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<br><br>dcm<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/19/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Alexander Skwar</b> <<a href="mailto:listen@alexander.skwar.name"> listen@alexander.skwar.name</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Darren Kirby <<a href="mailto:bulliver@badcomputer.org"> bulliver@badcomputer.org</a>>:<br><br>> Quoth the Alexander Skwar<br>><br>>> Darren, on the other hand, seems to have<br>>> some misunderstanding about how portage works.<br>><br>> Stop being so bloody obtuse and read my response to Willie. I know perfectly <br>> well how portage works. I am taking issues with your vague responses which<br>> are open to several interpretations.<br><br>No, they are not. I said, that it is unreasonable to expect, that<br>emerge should offer a version other than 0.8 of dir2ogg, as that's<br>the latest stable. Or rather, I asked maxim why he thinks, that<br>a version, other than the latest stable (ie. 0.8), should be<br>offered.<br><br>> You would be well served by writing a clear and concise response <br><br>I did. If you try to interprete it somehow and you get it wrong,<br>than I'm terribly sorry for that, but that's just not my problem.<br><br>> rather than<br>> another open-ended question if you want to get your point accross. <br><br>My point is, that emerge offers, by default, to install the latest<br>stable version. I wanted to make maxim think about why he expects<br>a different version.<br><br>>> Just because there's<br>>> a newer version of some program out there in the wild, doesn't mean, <br>>> that it'll be available to emerge/portage through some sort of magic.<br>><br>> That's certainly not what I think,<br><br>I didn't say so, did I?<br><br><br>Alexander Skwar<br>--<br><rcw> those apparently-bacteria-like multicolor worms coming out of <br> microsoft's backorifice<br><rcw> that's the backoffice logo<br><br><br>--<br><a href="mailto:gentoo-user@gentoo.org">gentoo-user@gentoo.org</a> mailing list<br><br></blockquote></div><br>