On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 05:56:25PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > If upstream does a new release, fixes bugs. Gentoo marks a previous > release stable. It is stabilizing a package with issues fixed upstream. > That does not make sense. Gentoo issues maybe good, but not upstreams. > > I maintained packages like iText which used to have a 30 day release > cycle. Up till recently Jetty was about the same. As a end user, I > needed the bug fixes. Not the delay for it be marked stable. > > I stopped running Redhat long ago due to time to vet updates. I run > Gentoo for the speed of being able to package and test out new code.
What I get out of this discussion is that some people prefer to run ~arch versus stable arch. I have no problem with that. But I do object to dropping "stable" altogether. I personally run stable with the rare occasional unstable package, where it's either not available as stable, or the unstable version fixes a bug in the stable version. And just for kicks I'm running gcc 6.3.0. It's one thing to rush-stabilize a new package that fixes a security hole. But I don't see the point of rush-stabilizing everything "just because". I recommend mostly keeping our current setup, with one change, i.e. allowing security-fix ebuilds to go "stable" immediately. -- Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
