In an ideal world, yes. But it isn't an ideal world, and the expectation that nothing in the "stable" tree will ever break is just not something that can be satisfied [1].
Yes, I know :)
Also, the gcc and release enginering teams have stated quite emphatically that they are not going to hold up progress on their projects just because other (typically maintainer-wanted) projects are not keeping up. [2] & [3]
There is a debate (argument?, flame war?) going on between devs about exactly how much notice was given in advance of gcc _moving_ to stable, but the package maintainers did have 2 months between gcc 4.1 entering ~arch and it moving to stable to fix their problems and move the fixed versions to stable.
Absolutely right. But at this point shouldn't the non-tested package be moved to ~arch? Or at the very beginning of major GCC upgrade processes (like 3.3-->3.4 or 3.4-->4.1), should there be some automatic advice that "the following packages on your world have NOT been tested with the GCC/glibc/kernel/whatever version you're trying to switch to, are you sure to switch?"
(Ok, maybe I should personally work on it... if only I had time,sigh)
So in the end, arch users are in much the same position as ~arch, except hopefully your incidences of breakage are much more rare. And IMO, you also get the right to bitch about it...but only if you also report the problems on bugs.gentoo.org! ;-)
That's something I usually do :) ,it's the minimum.
And of course, Gentoo comes with a lifetime guarantee of complete satisfaction or your money back. :-P
Well, right. I love gentoo, but as any significant other sometimes has its quirks :)
m. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
