* Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> schrieb: > The above suggestion sounds to me like increasing the bureaucracy and > hassle of stabilizing packages even more. We already have trouble with > outdated stable, especially on some archs. Do we /really/ want the > reputation of competing with Debian-stal^hble for staleness?
Well, I often have cases where the stable tree breaks something or requires deeper manual intervention. That doesn't make fun when maintaining dozens of systems. So a more-stable tree (hmm, perhaps call it 'mature' ;-)) would be a big win. I could also imagine doing that on per-package basis. Lets say, somehow automatically export the last time of unresolved bugs per ebuild to some sane place in the portage tree (eg. some new file in the per-package subdirs) so people could script up something that automatically maintains package.mask ? cu -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weig...@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------
