-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: > OUCH!! Sounds like one of those <slapping palm on forehead> moments we > /all/ have at times! =8^(
My head's still hurtin' :-)=) > Sounds like a good idea, here! Altho once marked stable, causing a > downgrade by rescinding that, is best avoided. It's better, if possible, > to mark the /next/ ~ version stable, at the same time one rescinds the > stable (or package masks, if considered bad enough) on the previously > highest stable version. Forcing downgrades should only be done if there's > good reason the next ~ version can't be stabilized, and then only with an > appropriate comment in the CHANGELOG indicating what's up. For me there have been no problems with 20050125. But I do not know if it can be considered stable (there are some bugs related to that version in Bugzilla). > The same, BTW, applies, tho to some lessor degree, to ~ packages, where > willy-nilly forced downgrades should be discouraged as well, with a > comment explaining the situation in the CHANGELOG, where such a downgrade > becomes necessary, thereby providing the hard data necessary for a > sysadmin (aka gentoo user) to determine whether they can safely move the > package to an overlay and re-ARCH or package.unmask it, or whether they > should proceed with the downgrade. Sounds fine to me. Often the CHANGELOG does not give much information about the reasons. In the case of downgrading glibc 20041102 a pointer to bug 74555 would be nice. Kind regards, Peter - -- Peter Schneider-Kamp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] LuFG Informatik II http://www-i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~nowonder RWTH Aachen phone: ++49 241 80-21211 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCaQXy3VbrCXkKHhwRAjZtAJ9NO+ecTZ2RJHRhiDGliDBU/gzKcQCgswhc tM23LeiEfm/i/SAnOUfdQS0= =PugZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
