Alejandro Colomar <alx@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > Hi Sam! > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 04:38:13AM +0000, Sam James wrote: >> "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > At 2023-10-25T17:08:19+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >> >> BTW, I just checked and Gentoo still doesn't consider 1.23.0 stable >> >> enough <https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-apps/groff>. :| >> > >> >> Alex, this is based on a misunderstanding of how our process works -- please >> CC me if you have questions or if something looks off in future, so I >> can explain/help if required. >> >> > I don't understand that claim. 1.23.x is as stable as it can be; there >> > have been no point releases. Its behavior is not changing based on the >> > calendar. >> >> The standard rule in Gentoo is 30 days after something has been released >> before it's considered for "stabilisation". We wait longer for critical >> packages like groff to give more time for any reported bugs in "~arch" >> (our testing area, which a lot of users participate in). It is generally >> not a comment on upstream stability at all. > > Yep, I understand it's just about your use in combination with other > packages in your distribution. What I'm not sure is if by default > Gentoo installs the stable packages or the testing ones. If you install > by default the stable one, I wouldn't want to force a dependency on a > package that you don't yet install by default. That's no problem - we regularly have things which require a new dependency to become stable and it's a nudge if it hasn't happened anyway. (See below). > >> >> > I have to assume that there are either changes since 1.22.4 >> > documented in NEWS (and if not, that's probably a bug) that they're >> > concerned about, or they're worried the broader community hasn't gotten >> > enough exposure to it yet. repology.org has been sitting at 64 >> > instances of groff 1.23.0 for weeks now; I think pretty much everyone >> > who's going to adopt it has done so by now. >> > >> >> ... in this case, the only blockers were really: >> * me having https://github.com/Perl/perl5/issues/21239 >> in the back of my head (wasn't paying full attention, just knew I had >> to go back and read any developments/further comments) >> >> * needing to look into a reported failure >> (https://bugs.gentoo.org/910226) - which looks like it should be fixed >> when we update our version of openvswitch (or we backport the patch, >> or both) > > So, if the Linux man-pages forces a dependency of groff-1.23.0, would it > be problematic for Gentoo before you declare it stable, or would it be > fine? Yeah, this is fine - go ahead. The only issue would really be if groff-1.23.0 was causing many issues which would prevent us from unleashing newer man-pages any time soon, but that is not the case. > >> >> > CCing Sam James (the only Gentoo developer I know by name, because he's >> > been active some of the same places I have been) in case he can throw >> > some light on this. >> >> Happily! Please feel free to loop me in if you reckon I can give input >> on things. >> >> So, all in all, none of this is a reflection on upstream, just a mix >> of: how we do things normally (waiting a bit post-release unless there's >> some serious regression in our stable version), waiting a bit longer >> because it's a critical package (sometimes 60 days, sometimes a bit >> longer), and not getting around to looking at that openvswitch bug yet. > > Yeah, the quality of groff-1.23.0 is way better than 1.22.4. I'm just > worried that forcing distros to use it too early might be detrimental. > > Cheers, > Alex > >> >> I promise I would report any problems if I determined they were in any >> way an upstream issue :) >> >> Thanks for reaching out. >> >> > >> > Regards, >> > Branden >> > >> >> best, >> sam >> thanks, sam
