| 1 |
On 23/09/13 15:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned |
| 5 |
>> KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that |
| 6 |
>> the arch status is set using profiles/profiles.desc and as I'm writing |
| 7 |
>> this, the mentioned arches are still 'stable', not 'dev' |
| 8 |
>> No matter what the news item or whatever says, only profiles.desc counts |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That's a thing that was never quite clear to me. Should there be |
| 11 |
> a one-to-one correspondence between an arch marked stable in |
| 12 |
> profiles.desc (i.e. having at least one profile labelled as stable |
| 13 |
> there) and the same arch having stable keywords? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
of course... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> There is at least one example for an arch that is only dev in |
| 18 |
> profiles.desc but used to have stable keywords (sh), and another arch |
| 19 |
> where it's the other way around (amd64-fbsd). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Ulrich |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
can't believe it was like that for amd64-fbsd and nobody noticed before, |
| 25 |
fixed that. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
i'm a bit confused, why do you think sh is not an stable arch? |
| 28 |
it's still an stable arch like m68k and s390 is... until someone changes |
| 29 |
those lines as per council's vote. |
Archives