1 |
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:04, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 12:08, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
3 |
> > I don't see why it would not be easy enough to comment the reasons an |
4 |
> > ebuild might not be marked stable. Another example that I can think of |
5 |
> > is the xorg-x11 ebuilds. You can see an obvious TODO list before it is |
6 |
> > considered stable. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Which, by the way, is out of date. Now that you've so kindly reminded |
9 |
> me, I'm updating it. |
10 |
|
11 |
*grin* |
12 |
|
13 |
My point is still pretty valid. This is especially true if bug #'s are |
14 |
listed within the ebuild itself. |
15 |
|
16 |
Perhaps a combination of this and "INDICATOR_ARCH" would be the proper |
17 |
solution? |
18 |
|
19 |
-- |
20 |
Chris Gianelloni |
21 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
22 |
Gentoo Linux |
23 |
|
24 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |