sa 3.2.1 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX

[Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>]

since 3.2.1 is still stable in gentoo portage would make sense to  
update rules on this for that bug ?

-- 
xpoint

Re: sa 3.2.1 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX

[Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si>]

> since 3.2.1 is still stable in gentoo portage [...]
> 3.2.5 is only marked unstable in gentoo

old -> historical -> rotten -> decaying -> stable

Re: sa 3.2.1 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX

[Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>]

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=301125

hope it gets resolved now, point for me is that 3.2.5 is only marked  
unstable in gentoo, and i tryed to make another server with just  
stable ebuilds to see where remaining problems is

-- 
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Re: sa 3.2.1 FH_DATE_PAST_20XX

[Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net>]

On 1/14/2010 8:55 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
> since 3.2.1 is still stable in gentoo portage would make sense to
> update rules on this for that bug ?
>

Since, and 3.2.5 was released in June of 2008, and it's currently
January of 2010, wouldn't it make sense for gentoo to either:
     1) abandon the package and remove it from portage
    -or-
    2) update the stable branch to the current version that has been our
stable release for over a year and a half?

3.2.1 was released in June of 2007, and that's the latest stable for
gentoo? Really? There's some pretty nasty bugs in that release (ie:
4179,5397,5509, 55115571,5680,5665)

It is a great disservice to the gentoo user community for them to
incorporate a tool that *needs* to be updated in a timely fashion into a
process with a really slow release cycle.

Since 3.2.1 is already broken, (even its sa-update is somewhat broken by
the "non-redundant mirrored-by" bug), I don't think that updating one
rule is going to help the gentoo users very much.