You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
A while ago, Mesa and the associated Intel drivers were updated to 9.2 in [extra], however the release page [http://www.mesa3d.org/relnotes/9.2.html] says that this is a development release, and that those who want stability should wait for the next release. Wouldn't this be something more appropriate to put in [testing] rather than [extra] if there are stability concerns?
Thanks!
Offline
I thought so too. But looks like there are no real problems with mesa 9.2.
Offline
I thought so too. But looks like there are no real problems with mesa 9.2.
I can attest to this. I've actually been using mesa-git for the last few months and besides one instance related to wayland support I haven't had a single issue. I imagine development releases are stable enough.
Offline
I've been having some stability issues, and sometimes things like flash don't display properly. I guess I'll just downgrade on my own.
Offline
Same here, running at 9.1.6.
That being said, I think the general idea is 9.2.0 should be stable enough.
Offline
9.2 might be stable enough, but the very fact that it comes with a notice that says that it might not be should be a sign that it should go in testing. It says it's a development release, but that's one of the things [testing] is for.
Offline
9.2 might be stable enough, but the very fact that it comes with a notice that says that it might not be should be a sign that it should go in testing. It says it's a development release, but that's one of the things [testing] is for.
I seems as though you feel quite strongly about this, so I think that you should know that the forums are not the place to propose such changes. You should ideally open a flyspray/feature request on the topic, or at least go ask on [arch-general] about the reasoning behind the current release policy of mesa, as well as if it would make sense to change it to what you are suggesting.
Maybe there is a very good technical reason why this has to be done this way… like maybe some of the features of the other graphics packages depend on these development releases. I honestly have no idea, and mesa (and the intel graphics stack in general) have always worked just fine for me, so I don't really care as long as it continues to do so.
Hopefully though, the bugtracker or mailing list might actually yield a proper response for you, as I think there tends to be the right eyes on those information channels.
Offline
WonderWoofy, thank you for the useful information. I will go try that.
Offline
Wine packages are development releases. A number of packages are VCS snapshots, including vim.
Hell, there's a good argument to be made in a lot of projects that x.0 releases are really betas. This is Arch, you're expected to be able to deal with it if you have problems.
Last edited by Scimmia (2013-09-22 16:34:20)
Offline
Pages: 1