Re: prominent set of packages?

[Jan Šmydke <jan.smydke%jh-inst.cas.cz@localhost>]

Hello again,

I thank to those who replied to me. I tried to build it anyway - and it
successfully did build! (why it failed on the buildbot...? - I don't
care more)

But from the replies I conclude that perhaps I didn't express the point
properly. I simply wanted to know whether I am alone with the idea of
the stable-branch policy:

> 5. I, IMHO, would (stupidly) expect from a respected OS to guarantee
> in some minimal extent that after a stable-branch update a user would
> not end up with a broken system if it used to work so far.
> 
> I would expect that if such a package in CURRENT fails to build again
> - it shouldn't get to STABLE and other problematic packages
> should be kept at their usable state (no need to have the newest
> version breaking sth important).

Now that I have checked the OOO did build successfully (for me at
least), the question becomes a bit irrelevant. Anyway I am curious what
is the posture of the pkgsrc people to this. And if you feel my idea is
too restrictive, do you think

> 6. It's an uneasy question which set of packages should be guarded as
> "prominent" or the most important. But at least if SOME list is given,
> everybody can decide if he/she is going to invest time in pkgsrc.

is a noticeable idea to help pkgsrc?

I am grateful for any comment to this from you - thank you!

JS