| 1 |
Dan Armak wrote: |
| 2 |
> Just a quick note (without addressing your main point). ~arch is _not_ |
| 3 |
> "unstable". It is not supposed to be unstable in the literal meaning of the |
| 4 |
> word. It is 'testing', or 'works for me'. Developers can _not_ commit things, |
| 5 |
> or leave things, unmasked in ~x86 that have known issues, or that are |
| 6 |
> alpha-quality releases from upstream. (This doesn't apply directly to what |
| 7 |
> you were saying, I just don't like to see it called unstable...) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Okay, it seems to me that squid 2.5 and apache 2.0 don't belong in the |
| 10 |
~x86 keyword then; I had considered this okay under the mistaken |
| 11 |
impression that this was an 'unstable' rather than a testing branch. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Apache and squid's devel versions should be slotted, masked or placed in |
| 14 |
their own ebuilds, by the sounds of what you're saying. Agreed? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Brad |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- // |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives