gEDA/gaf stable release 1.0.1 (20070626) now available: http://geda.seul.org/release/v1.0/1.0.1/gaf-20070626-relnotes.html (should the version now say 1.0.1 instead of 20070626? that would mean portage should 'downgrade' to 1.0.1 instead of upgrading to 20070626...)
Created attachment 124302 [details] libgeda-20070626.ebuild
Created attachment 124303 [details] geda-20070626.ebuild
Thanks for letting us know. Since you filed that bug an even newer version was released so I've committed it instead. The new numbering is going to be a pain, but once we can stabilize this new version and get rid of the others it will be solved. Don't forget to mask the -200* version if you want to use the new one. Please next time submit a patch instead of the full ebuild, this makes it a lot easier for us to see what changed. Denis.
Well actually the 1.1.1 version is the development version and 1.0.1 is the stable release (the first release actually). So I think the 1.0.1 version should be in portage as well (and should be considered to be unmasked before the 1.1.1 devel version).
(In reply to comment #4) > Well actually the 1.1.1 version is the development version and 1.0.1 is the > stable release (the first release actually). So I think the 1.0.1 version > should be in portage as well (and should be considered to be unmasked before > the 1.1.1 devel version) Have you looked at the release notes ? Version 1.1.1 is a bug fix release. Thus, I don't see why we'd want an older version with more bugs. Also, I didn't mask version 1.1.1, so it won't need to be unmasked. Denis.
(In reply to comment #5) > Have you looked at the release notes ? Version 1.1.1 is a bug fix release. > Thus, I don't see why we'd want an older version with more bugs. > > Also, I didn't mask version 1.1.1, so it won't need to be unmasked. > > Denis. > Well, in my portage tree sci-electronics/geda-1.1.1 is ~x86. And the 1.1.x branch is the devel/snapshot releases and the 1.0.x is the stable branch. Take a look at http://geda.seul.org/sources.html for release notes. Therefore I think we should have both the stable and the devel versions in portage, but having the devel versions ~ masked. Jonatan
(In reply to comment #6) > Well, in my portage tree sci-electronics/geda-1.1.1 is ~x86. And the 1.1.x > branch is the devel/snapshot releases and the 1.0.x is the stable branch. > Take a look at http://geda.seul.org/sources.html for release notes. While it is called by upstream a development snapshot, it is no more a snapshot than the 1.0.1 so-called release. I suggest you look at the contents of the release notes and not the headlines. Version 1.1.1 includes quite a few bug and usability fixes compared to 1.0.1, and does not introduce anything new or even risky. So whatever they call it, as far as we are concerned it's a progress that does not require adding an older and buggier version in our tree. Especially in view of the mess ahead of us, that is the switch to a new numbering scheme. Also I'd like to add that upstream cannot be made responsible for deciding what is stable in Gentoo and its particular environment and toolchain. We have to and make these decisions ourselves based our own rules and experience. Making this kind of decisions for our users is a big part of our job. > Therefore I think we should have both the stable and the devel versions in > portage, but having the devel versions ~ masked. We think differently, and we usually are in a good position to judge this kind of thing. However, in case you had hard evidences that we are wrong (i.e. bugs that would exist is 1.1.1 and not in 1.0.1 and that could not be fixed by a patch on 1.1.1), we'd be happy to mask or remove 1.1.1 and commit 1.0.1 instead. The good news for you is that the power and flexibility of Gentoo allows you to have a different opinion as ours and override our choices. You can add an 1.0.1 ebuild to your local overlay if you want to, it only requires one very minor modification of the 1.1.1 ebuild. Denis.
Ok, you've convinced me :-) Thanks for all the hard work!
