Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Axel Thimm]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061029/c375cc0c/attachment.sig>