[Frugalware-devel] Packaging policy

[Gabriel C]

Russell Dickenson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Gabriel C <crazy at frugalware.org> wrote:
>>  I have no idea why you think this is a 'issue' because in fact it isn't at all.
>>
>>  As vmiklos said already current[1] 'may' and 'will' have pre/rc releases depending how big is the step
>>  from old to new stable or how big the changes are so that may need testing.
>>
>>  Even stable release will have but that depends on the application. As example you won't see a gnome / kde / xfce unstable going in stable
>>  but you may see 'foo_not_yet_stable_but_usable_application' in stable which is the only way to have 'foo' as opensource in Linux.
>>
>>  Also some applications like ffmpeg and other will be 'packaged from svn/cvs' simply because upstream doesn't release any 'stable tarball'
>>
>>  There are also other packages where upstream tells to package from CVS etc.
>>
>>  In other words such a list is not useful at all ( maybe for yourself ) . Its simply run what you want to run and don't install anything you think is 'not that stable for you'
>>
>>  PS: ( you may want to run text mode since X is not stable release , not in stable nor in current )
>>
>>  [1] man , it is the development repo what do you expect ?
> 
> Crazy,
> 
> Thanks for your reply.  I realise that it *is*, as you say, only an
> issue for me.  Since I'm not packaging applications for Frugalware I
> should back off and let those who are "get on with the job".  I hadn't
> meant to cause any difficulty for anyone, instead I just wanted to
> clarify the packaging policy.

I don't even think it is a problem for you , you probably think it is one :)
It really depends on what you package , how and 'why'.

Let me give you an simply stupid example.

' We assume 'foo' released a week ago and is already in current for some days. In these some days upstream fixed 10 memory leaks , and some crash bugs in the CVS
version. Now I as the packager can backport these , release foo-1.2.3-'2' with patches from CVS ( which is for you not stable code ) and you won't notice anything or 
I can do something like debian and call it foo-1.2.3+cvs2008...-2 and you'll notice it.'

In both cases 'why you won't want to run that package' ?

Such things are true for 'stable released packages' 'sometimes' , where sometimes can be something like released '2000' :) 
In some cases one is better to run a rc versions or even CVS code which of course may have bugs too but it works at least.

There are also some special bigger packages like X where you have to figure 'what' version does work best with 'what' 'drivers' on 'what tool chain' 
and 'what kernel version' etc. Not that easy you can trust me :) 

I don't think you would like to have the so called stable release which most probably will segfaults all over the place over something does work 
fine even is called 'pre+fixes' ?

That said 'not stable releases aren't always bad nor broken' sometimes they are / may be better as an real stable release.

Of course we try to avoid the need of such things as much a possible.


> 
> Both VMiklos and yourself have explained that quite clearly and
> clarified those points on which I wasn't clear.  I appreciate the time
> both of you have taken to reply to me.
> 

you are welcome :)

> 
> May you always be Frugal,
> 
> Russell Dickenson (AKA phayz)


crazy