Bug 102707

Summary:	bonnie++ 1.93 not marked as ~* even though upstream refers to it as "experimental, not for serious use"
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	Niklas Bolander <niklas.bolander>
Component:	New packages	Assignee:	Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers>
Status:	VERIFIED NEEDINFO
Severity:	minor
Priority:	High
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---

Description Niklas Bolander 2005-08-16 06:04:00 UTC

Accourding to the homepage (http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/) the latest
version of Bonnie++ is 1.03a and then there are some experimental versions. In
portage the latest of these dev releases are marked as stable for most
architectures.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Comment 1 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2005-08-16 06:15:11 UTC

What's your trouble with that one? Does not work for you?

Comment 2 Niklas Bolander 2005-08-17 06:52:06 UTC

Both works for me. All 1.9x releases are experimental releases from the yet to
become stable 2.0 branch. The latest release in the stable branch is 1.03a.

I though that it were policy to mark upstream alpha and beta releases as
unstable indefinately?

Comment 3 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2005-08-17 07:29:29 UTC

There is no such strict policy - see
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap4
for more info.

Thanks.

Comment 4 Niklas Bolander 2005-08-19 03:07:09 UTC

From the link:
"...if Gimp decides to release an unstable/development series marked as 1.3.0,
then these ebuilds should be put in package.mask because the software itself is
of development quality and is not recommended by the developers for distribution."

As I understand it, an experimental branch like this should be in package.mask.
Am I misunderstanding the policy?

Comment 5 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2005-08-19 03:30:31 UTC

Yeah, and "it is up to the maintainer of the package to deem which versions are
stable or if development versions should be in package.mask or left in ~arch."

The software just works fine, there has not been a single bug about it for
almost one year. If you don't like it, then put it into
/etc/portage/package.mask. I don't see any benefit from putting a thing which
works fine on multiple arches into ~arch or even package.mask.

Closing.