On 10/26/07, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <SNIP> > patches to even compile and fix all the critical bugs. He switched to > gaim 2.0 beta packages, that were much more stable, but without any > patches. In such cases, I would say it is okay to move to development > versions.
Yes, that makes sense, especially if the new version is more stable, and/or if other updates in the [core] or [extra] break the dependencies. > If there is no stable version for a package yet, but it is widely used, > then using a development version is okay as well (Example: I added the > iwl4965 driver when it was in a very early stage, because people needed it). I don't know about that package, because I've never used it, but was it placed in [extra] or [unstable]? AFAIR, the unstable packages do not replace packages from [core] or [extra], so, IMHO, it is safe to put such packages in unstable. > In some rare cases, we need features of a development version as a > dependency. Such cases are decided by the responsible developer, > <SNIP> Yes, that makes sense as well. No point in requiring something from [unstable], if the package that depends on it is in [extra] or [core]. -- Branko _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
