On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 11:46:22 BST Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 19:20:53 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > > It turns out that over the past week or so, there have been several > > > > _different_ firefox ebuilds released. One of them was broken: > > Version 52.4.0 (Oct 3) was OK. > > > > Version 52.4.0 (Oct 7) was broken. > > > > Version 52.4.0 (Oct 9) is OK. > > > > You (and I) had successfully installed the Oct 3 version of 52.4.0, > > but when I tried to install the Oct 7 version of 52.4.0, it failed. > > The Oct 9 version is supposed to be fixed. I don't really see how you > > can repeatedly release new versions of something without changing the > > version number, but maybe that's just me... > > It depends on the breakage. If the installed program is broken it should > be bumped, but if the breakage only relates to the build in some > circumstances, it makes sense not to bump it. Otherwise everyone that > installed the first time, maybe because they had the necessary > dependencies already, would have to re-emerge the package another two > times for no benefit. > > If they truly were new versions it would be different, but all the ebuilds > resulted in the same version of the software being installed.
I see what you mean, but in that case the development management model is broken. It's sacrificing correctness and rigour to convenience. It needs a review at the highest level. What's called Management in ISO9000. -- Regards, Peter.
