1 |
On 23/09/13 16:08, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
2 |
> On 23/09/13 15:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
3 |
>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned |
6 |
>>> KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that |
7 |
>>> the arch status is set using profiles/profiles.desc and as I'm writing |
8 |
>>> this, the mentioned arches are still 'stable', not 'dev' |
9 |
>>> No matter what the news item or whatever says, only profiles.desc counts |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> That's a thing that was never quite clear to me. Should there be |
12 |
>> a one-to-one correspondence between an arch marked stable in |
13 |
>> profiles.desc (i.e. having at least one profile labelled as stable |
14 |
>> there) and the same arch having stable keywords? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> of course... |
17 |
> |
18 |
>> There is at least one example for an arch that is only dev in |
19 |
>> profiles.desc but used to have stable keywords (sh), and another arch |
20 |
>> where it's the other way around (amd64-fbsd). |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> Ulrich |
23 |
>> |
24 |
> i'm a bit confused, why do you think sh is not an stable arch? |
25 |
> it's still an stable arch like m68k and s390 is... until someone changes |
26 |
> those lines as per council's vote. |
27 |
|
28 |
ah, scratch that, got it now -- vapier already started downgrading the |
29 |
'sh' status earlier, before the council's vote by changing the profiles.desc |