On Monday 26 January 2009 20:08:08 Eli Wapniarski wrote: > However.... Xorg 1.5 BETA. common. RPM RC3 are you guys serious. What I > expect is that when a distro declares a stable release that the software > has been tested enough to satisfaction of the developers to release a > "stable" version. If it ain't stable it ain't stable. And if you > incorporate unstable core backends like Xorg or RPM then the distro is > certainly not "stable". Different developers have different ideas about what a release number means. Instead of complaining that you are using beta versions please show the bugs you are having because you are using the rc3 of rpm. When was the last time that rpm failed on you? Clearly if the maintainer of rpm that is also the packager for Fedora has decided to release it for a stable version of Fedora why is he wrong? I have managed and released some projects where sometimes we kept the rc stage because there were problems in the windows port. Does that mean that we can not release it for Fedora because we want more tests on windows? Ignoring that developers only care about Fedora when developing software it is not what you thing but it is what you are implying, because for you stable means in the context of Fedora. You can not complain that 4.0.0 (deemed releasable by the developers) was beta because according to your previous comment 4.0.0 was "stable" (for some definition of stable). That means that we only trust the stable versions sometimes? Surely I know that kde developers warned about 4.0.0 but I have seen other cases where that warning was not present. Notice also that different programs have different dependencies and using compatibility versions is not an answer, or else the complexity of the system would grow up quite easily. The stability problem is not easy and there are no silver bullets but to judge a package just by its release number is not a proof of that. > Like I said... Bleeding Edge good. Just plain bleeding very bad. :). > > Eli -- Jos? Ab?lio
