Please users stop abusing of the out-of-date option.
What you SHOULDN'T do: - report as out-of-date a package when a beta or a RC is out - report as out-of-date a package which conflicts - report as out-of-date a package which doesn't build - report as out-of-date a package which is broken - report as out-of-date a package when the mirror you use is out-of-date - and my favorite, report as out-of-date a package which WORKS like this one at the bottom of this mail
What you SHOULD do: - report as out-of-date a package when a *stable* release of that package is out
Thanks.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Arch Website Notification nobody@archlinux.org Date: 1 December 2011 13:39 Subject: [arch-notifications] Orphan Extra package [netkit-bsd-finger] marked out-of-date To: arch-notifications@archlinux.org
xxx wants to notify you that the following packages may be out-of-date:
* netkit-bsd-finger 0.17-6 [extra] (i686): https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/netkit-bsd-finger/ * netkit-bsd-finger 0.17-6 [extra] (x86_64): https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/netkit-bsd-finger/
The user provided the following additional text:
Now it works.
--2011-12-01 13:38:27-- http://mir.archlinux.fr/extra/os/x86_64/netkit-bsd-finger-0.17-6-x86_64.pkg.... Resolving mir.archlinux.fr... 91.121.141.57 Connecting to mir.archlinux.fr|91.121.141.57|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 18132 (18K) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `/var/cache/pacman/pkg/netkit-bsd-finger-0.17-6-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz.part'
100%[===========================================================================================>] 18,132 --.-K/s in 0.06s
2011-12-01 13:38:27 (306 KB/s) - `/var/cache/pacman/pkg/netkit-bsd-finger-0.17-6-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz.part' saved [18132/18132]
Andrea Scarpino wrote:
Please users stop abusing of the out-of-date option.
What you SHOULDN'T do:
- report as out-of-date a package when a beta or a RC is out
- report as out-of-date a package which conflicts
- report as out-of-date a package which doesn't build
- report as out-of-date a package which is broken
- report as out-of-date a package when the mirror you use is out-of-date
- and my favorite, report as out-of-date a package which WORKS like
this one at the bottom of this mail
What you SHOULD do:
- report as out-of-date a package when a *stable* release of that package
is out
Thanks.
Wouldn't it be better to put this in the confirmation page that you get when you click "Flag package out of date"?
On 12/01/2011 03:41 PM, Andrea Scarpino wrote:
Please users stop abusing of the out-of-date option.
What you SHOULDN'T do:
- report as out-of-date a package when a beta or a RC is out
- report as out-of-date a package which conflicts
- report as out-of-date a package which doesn't build
- report as out-of-date a package which is broken
- report as out-of-date a package when the mirror you use is out-of-date
- and my favorite, report as out-of-date a package which WORKS like
this one at the bottom of this mail
I can add this:
- don't report out of date packages that follow odd/even versioning scheme.
even - stable odd - development.
This applies to all gnome modules/apps, including banshee! :D
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
don't report out of date packages that follow odd/even versioning scheme.
even - stable odd - development.
This applies to all gnome modules/apps, including banshee! :D
Good to know. This is not always obvious when you are not familiar with the release policy of a given piece of software.
2011/12/1 Cédric Girard girard.cedric@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
don't report out of date packages that follow odd/even versioning scheme.
even - stable odd - development.
This applies to all gnome modules/apps, including banshee! :D
Good to know. This is not always obvious when you are not familiar with the release policy of a given piece of software.
Corollary:
Do not report as out-of-date packages whose release policy you are not familiar with...
-t
On 01-12-2011 15:41, Tom Gundersen wrote:
2011/12/1 Cédric Girard girard.cedric@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
don't report out of date packages that follow odd/even versioning scheme.
even - stable odd - development.
This applies to all gnome modules/apps, including banshee! :D
Good to know. This is not always obvious when you are not familiar with the release policy of a given piece of software.
Corollary:
Do not report as out-of-date packages whose release policy you are not familiar with...
-t
Fair enough, however when checking some projects' page it just says: version x.y.z released, and there is no mention whatsoever if it is a stable version or not and for some programs it's not clear from the release logs what are stable releases and testing releases.
Personally, before I flag something as out of date I usually test if the new version builds fine by changing the version in the pkgbuild, but I've been wrong before when flagging something as out of date when the latest release was a testing/unstable release, even though it builds fine and may solve some problem with the current stable version, in which case I build a more up to date version from abs for me and wait for the next stable version to be released in the repos.
Don't take this as a complaint, because it isn't and I'm sorry if it seems to be, it's just that some users in their willingness to want to keep arch the most up to date are incorrectly flagging packages out of date and I can understand how that upsets the devs, but in most cases I guess it's not with bad intentions.
Am Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:41:46 +0100 schrieb Tom Gundersen teg@jklm.no:
Do not report as out-of-date packages whose release policy you are not familiar with...
Better ask upstream to not release a development version as a stable release regardless of their versioning scheme.
Heiko
On 1 December 2011 15:06, Heiko Baums lists@baums-on-web.de wrote:
Am Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:41:46 +0100 schrieb Tom Gundersen teg@jklm.no:
Do not report as out-of-date packages whose release policy you are not familiar with...
Better ask upstream to not release a development version as a stable release regardless of their versioning scheme.
Heiko
Cant tell if joking or serious :|
I refrained from saying something until now. Obviously the solution is to put some text in the mark as outdated confirmation page that says some basic rules.
Calvin Morrison
On 2 December 2011 04:06, Heiko Baums lists@baums-on-web.de wrote:
Am Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:41:46 +0100 schrieb Tom Gundersen teg@jklm.no:
Do not report as out-of-date packages whose release policy you are not familiar with...
Better ask upstream to not release a development version as a stable release regardless of their versioning scheme.
Heiko
Yes, this does happen. Some software have stable releases that are years old, so people use the development releases as stable ones instead and ignore the ones upstream call stable. We even have some packages like that, but I can't recall which.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Andrea Scarpino andrea@archlinux.org wrote:
Please users stop abusing of the out-of-date option.
What you SHOULDN'T do:
- report as out-of-date a package when a beta or a RC is out
- report as out-of-date a package which conflicts
- report as out-of-date a package which doesn't build
- report as out-of-date a package which is broken
- report as out-of-date a package when the mirror you use is out-of-date
- and my favorite, report as out-of-date a package which WORKS like
this one at the bottom of this mail
Somewhat related: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18829 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16831
arch-general@lists.archlinux.org