I've so far seen at least two packages in extra. Scribus and reported Rhythmbox. Needless to say, those do not work as expected all the time. However, I do understand that Arch uses cutting edge packages 100% of the time.
So, the question is... When do you think it is okay to go over the 'edge'? How often does it happen that a dev decides to use stable development snapshots, and why? Should there be a more strict rule like allowing absolutely NO non-stable versions in extra, and just put everything non-stable in unstable? I'm asking this not to troll, but in order to have a better understanding of how Arch repositories are managed. I'm planning to build a LiveCD for DTP, and I want to know how complicated it would be to keep it up-to-date. If, for example, the above rule of using stable for any packages that are developement versions (regardless of its stability), I could safely package one stable and one experimental LiveCD and know the former will be just fine. -- Branko _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
