On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > >When some people ask whether anything is wrong with a beta, it is > >equally valid to ask what's wrong with the last official stable > >release? Where are the answers to both questions? > > Exactly who says that the beta has more bugs / problems then the > latest stable, since its newer its supposed to be an improvement, > this can be in features but also in bugcount. > > For example I would expect a 1.0.1 RC to be better then 1.0.0 for > most products, so which do I package? I think this is quite easy to answer: If the software is labeled as beta/pre/cvs/svn/rc in fact anything non-released, then upstream obviously considers this software not ready for mass distribution. There are exceptions to this rule like some projects that never release or release every few millenia and explicitely ask to use their VCS, but these are indeed the exception and it's straightforward to fulfill Michael's request, e.g. "packaging from CVS due to upstream recommending doing so instead of using the old release version". Where packagers should really offer an explanation is when upstream has a sensible release cycle, doesn't recommend jumping on VCS or betas and still the packager sees a need to package non-released software. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpeYzNsPCXxy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
