Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 102707 - bonnie++ 1.93 not marked as ~* even though upstream refers to it as "experimental, not for serious use"
Summary: bonnie++ 1.93 not marked as ~* even though upstream refers to it as "experime...
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High minor (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Linux bug wranglers
Depends on:
Reported: 2005-08-16 06:04 UTC by Niklas Bolander
Modified: 2005-08-19 03:30 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Niklas Bolander 2005-08-16 06:04:00 UTC
Accourding to the homepage ( 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

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
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
for more info.

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.