Amarok Beta in sabayon-weekly

[dunsurfin]

Sorry i was not clear. i know that. But what i mean is that beta packages that gets compiled automatically from gentoo testing must be not allowed to enter in sabayonlinux.org(obviously that's my opinion). My doubt is that maybe there are not enought testers and this package was simply automatically moved to stable repos without any feedback.

Everybody who uses Linux is a tester and; I don't know what your experience of Non Linux Operating Systems is but one could say that everyone who uses a computer is a tester.

There is no such thing as totally stable software as it is not possible for every single eventuality to be foreseen. Sabayon has a dedicated band of testers who do their very best to test software before it goes into the weekly repository and the label "beta" is neither here nor there. Some packages stay in beta for years - does that mean we shouldn't use them?

If lxnay hadn't released entropy as a working beta we would probably still be compiling all our packages.

[Provia]

I'm not afraid about beta software, but i think that, to offfer the best possible stability, is
disadvantageous to include that software in the main repository.
I also know that probably the package i've noticed(amarok) is stable enought to daily use. But in my opinion is a nonsense to provide beta packages of a program that has quick development like this one.
I agree including beta packages only if the stable releas seems to be far from being released. In other cases i simply think that is a useless risk.
Keep in mind that i'm saying that because i(sometimes) work with volunteers of a linux group in my city. We help people to install linux and we offer them support. New linux users need to get the most stable system possible to avoid too many problems and support request. I think that rolling release distro like Sabayon are not necessarily unstable. If we keep attention to simple things like the one we are discussing now it will be stable and solid without being outdated.
Paradoxically we have some used packages(like playonlinux wich i've reported to bug tracker) that are outdated and some packages like amarok in beta when the new stable is available.
I hope you feel that this is meant to be a constructive critics.

PS: if i get some free time i will dedicate a sabayon installation to limbo testing and bug reporting.

[belcocco]

@provia
across the board quite a +1
Ciao

[dunsurfin]

Keep in mind that i'm saying that because i(sometimes) work with volunteers of a linux group in my city. We help people to install linux and we offer them support.

Bravo! (or should it be Brava?!). That is a much needed service. As an old gadgee I was late in coming to computers. I tried installing a version of Linux around 1997/8 when all configuration was manual. I managed to get a desktop (no colour of course) that was about 4 times the size of my screen. I was so disheartened that I didn't try again until 2005/6 and was disheartened again with the lack of OTB experience. Then I found Sabayon (version 3) and married it. I have come close to divorce sometimes but, on the whole, it's a great distro for all levels of experience. Sorry if I got carried away there.

[svantoviit]

In particular, Sabayon is based on Gentoo's testing branch. Gentoo's testing branch is about on par with Debian's Sid (unstable branch) releases. Though based on the bleeding edge, you will find Sabayon is quite stable and perhaps more cutting edge.

Not that hard to understand. If you are looking for something "stable", you are in the wrong place. But there are plenty other distros out there.

…maybe there are not enought testers

Feel free to become one

[Provia]

Not that hard to understand. If you are looking for something "stable", you are in the wrong place. But there are plenty other distros out there.

I know that i will see this kind of critics but what i've say is not "make Sabayon the most stable distro ever" but only "don't introduce 'instable' software when possibile".
In that case, as i sayied, is clear that including amarok beta is not an adavantage even under the aspect of 'bleeding edge'(as we now have a package that is both 'unstable' and outdated). For me the solution is just wait the stable release of the package and then let it pass in limbo->sabayonlinux.org->sabayon-weekly.
So i don't think this is a critic against the Sabayon release model just a little political change. I don't want to transform SL in debian stable.

[Stupot]

I also know that probably the package i've noticed(amarok) is stable enought to daily use.

This really boils down to your philosophy over what this distro should be offering in it's main repository (you seem to be aware of that fact).

There are plenty of times where software proves to be unstable and it sits in sabayon-limbo until a stable update can be made. The thing is, why should anybody care whether a package is considered beta or not? It either proves to be functional and stable, or it doesn't. The label of beta for some applications is practically permenant. To go through every package and figure out what its maintainers release/versioning policy is would take tremendous amounts of book keeping. And for what gain? A package is either stable or not, irregardless of labels. Functionality is either there or it isn't, regardless of labels.

Now, if we were bumping up to a beta of an application that had known missing functionality from a previous stable release, then that is certainly a problem and a bug should be filed. Normally such a release would be considered alpha, which are very rarely considered for inclusion as an unmasked package by gentoo.

[Provia]

I also know that probably the package i've noticed(amarok) is stable enought to daily use.

This really boils down to your philosophy over what this distro should be offering in it's main repository (you seem to be aware of that fact).

Please don't be so aggressive. I'm not SL project leader or a SL developer, i'm not deciding nothing for anyone. I'm here just to discuss an idea. And, in my opinion, this idea is not so stupid. Obviously is discutible but other distro like debian or chakra already use this 'phylosophy', this is not my invention. If someone think that for some reasons i'm wrong or don't agree with me that's not a problem. Just discuss my arguments

I respond to you:
Of course 'beta' label does not mean 'bugged' but 'not already tested enough'.
In most cases a beta software is ok but you are not sure. So my idea is "why give to SL users to test software and not to developers?". This will give SL users a most stable OS and this will also distribuite the testing work. Why saying "if i launch it an it seems to work give it to normal users, if a problem come out then report it".
Beta label IMO is not useless. If a software is already tested by it's developers is easy to detect a malfunction as we can think that maybe is only a packaging-related problem.
Reassuming my suggestion. Just not allow beta packages to get in entropy. If a package is available only in beta version then use it, but only in case that is necessary. I've used chakra before and it is absolutely not outdated but incredibly stable(due also to the reason that it is a kde only distro).

[Ryuno-Ki]

That is the wonderful thing about open source though. If enough people want something, some of them will be motivated enough to actually do it.

This!
That's a main reason, why I engage on the wiki. I enjoyed it to look up stuff in one when I used Ubuntu back then.
Hm, testing software is a time consuming job I guess … so I'm out here.

[dunsurfin]

In most cases a beta software is ok but you are not sure. So my idea is "why give to SL users to test software and not to developers?". This will give SL users a most stable OS and this will also distribuite the testing work. Why saying "if i launch it an it seems to work give it to normal users, if a problem come out then report it".
Beta label IMO is not useless. If a software is already tested by it's developers is easy to detect a malfunction as we can think that maybe is only a packaging-related problem.

SL is a distro that supports virtually all Linux desktop environments, not just KDE or Gnome, and has an enormous software repository so it is perhaps really important that final testing is by users and not developers. Developers can't be expected to keep the large range of hardware and other software that users will have. Obviously you feel strongly about this issue but, so far, the discussion seems to suggest that others feel differently. This is no bad thing - without disagreement we would still be swinging through the trees - but I don't think you have made your case. (And I don't mean that aggressively )