Re: [Mldonkey-users] Re: Where are the .tar.gz of 2.5.23, 2.5.24 ?

[Curtis Magyar]

On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 12:57 +0200, spiralvoice wrote:
> @Curtis: According to
> http://packages.gentoo.org/packages/?category=net-p2p;name=mldonkey
> 2.5.16-r7 is marked stable and 2.5.2x cores are unstable. So don´t use 
> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86", use /etc/portage/portage.keywords instead to 
> unmask packages you want to have. Then you should get the stable core.

I know, but there is a policy about packages that says:

...  http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?
part=3&chap=1#doc_chap3
There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for ebuilds.
The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires testing. The use of
package.mask denotes that the application or library itself is deemed
unstable. For example, if gimp-1.2.0 is the stable release from Gimp
developers, and a new bug fix release is available as 1.2.1, then a
developer should mark the ebuild as ~arch for testing in portage because
the release is deemed to be stable. In another example, if Gimp decides
to release an unstable/development series marked as 1.3.0, then these
ebuilds should be put in package.mask because the software itself is of
development quality and is not recommended by the developers for
distribution.
...

The same goes for Debian.  The last time I tried 2.5.2x, it had pretty
bad performance compared to 2.5.16, my sources filled up with thousands
of null clients.  Weird stuff like that.  I really don't want to give
the impression that I'm complaining in any way shape or form.  Most
projects have a stable and development tree, thats fine.  Unless
something has changed, 2.5.2x should be considered the devel tree at the
current time, should it not?

I think mldonkey is awesome.  The best P2P application out there hands
down.  Putting versions from the proverbial development tree into the
distros, reflects badly on mldonkey's reputation.  And at no time should
my package manager overwrite a working app with a lesser performing one.
The package chasers are already running CVS code, they don't care about
~x86.


--
Curtis Magyar