On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:16:25PM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote: > Martin Costabel wrote: > [] > > cd /sw/fink/10.4 > > mv stable /dev/null > > mv unstable stable > > mv pangocairo-branch/unstable unstable > > > > I know it's a dream, > > After looking for a while at the state of pangocairo-branch/stable, I am > now convinced that what I proposed is not a dream, it is a necessity. > > I would now even go further and say: > > The only realistic way to deploy the pangocairo branch is to scrap not > only the 10.4/stable tree, but also 10.4/unstable and pc/stable. At the > moment of deployment, both 10.4/stable and 10.4/unstable should become a > copy of pc/unstable. Afterwards, changes to the stable tree should > concentrate on bug fixes (and eliminating non-working packages). > > Let's face it: > - Since the time of the last official bindist (April 2006), *all* > maintenance and testing efforts went into the unstable trees, and > rightly so. From what I have seen, almost all the heroic work for the > pangocairo branch went into unstable, too. > - The existing live bindists are all based on the unstable tree, and our > standard advice to a user who complains about a problem with the stable > tree is to "activate unstable". > _ On Leopard, no one in their right mind uses stable. > > All this gets urgent now with the pc-branch. The pc/stable tree is in > large parts at least a year behind the 10.4/stable tree (Even gtk+2 is > far older - 2.4.9 instead of 2.6.10). Merging it with 10.4/stable would > be a *major* effort, and we should not waste our precious manpower with > this.
Correct; the pc/stable section has never been updated since the branching and isn't part of what we will merge back into the public trees. The initial tagging/branching was a bit overly broad vs what we actually wound up hacking. > I personally know that I will not spend time with the 18 out of my 32 > packages in pc/stable that are far older than their counterparts in > 10.4/stable, nor with finding out why 5 packages - among them packages > whose existence I have forgotten - exist in one tree and not in the > other. Although I have never done this before, I would start > unmaintaining packages. > > Keeping a pre-pangocairo/stable tree alongside a pangocairo/unstable > tree will not work, either. How could we then move packages from > unstable to stable? Mixing stable and unstable (i.e., using older "stable" packages once one has started using "unstable", or cherry-picking just a few unstables into a stable system) has never really been supported and definitely never expected to really work well. dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
