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

[Sylvain LE GALL]

On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 08:01:50AM -0500, Curtis Magyar wrote:
> 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.

Hello,

Well there is two point of view concerning this issue : 
- P2P like mldonkey require a very up to date release to work ( P2P is
  evolving fast )
- stable is preferabe to unstable ( off course up to date doesn't mean
  less performant )

And that's a really big problem to determine the good balance between
this two notion. In fact, i am not enough good to know if a tagged
released is stable or not ( but i guess if it is released, it means that
it is a minimum stable ).

But, i think -- as a developper -- you should know that the probleme of
a program is to know if there is bug or not... I could not browse all
the lines of mldonkey code to find the bugs... 

So i am aware of problems concerning beeing synch with release of
mldonkey. But i also got bug concerning upgrade ( please see :
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=262516 ). Moreover, all
the latest release are alias as 2.6preX... this should means the dev
team is near an end...

Debian unstable is made for this. I maybe should upload to experimental
but the mldonkey release doesn't break enough functionnality to really
be "experimental"...

Anyway, as you said it is up to me to choose which version i release...
But it comes from the interaction with user -- who wants new release...

Kind regard
Sylvain Le Gall