| 1 |
В Вск, 21/11/2010 в 01:47 -0600, Ryan Hill пишет: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300 |
| 3 |
> Alistair Bush <ali_bush@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages. |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > Why not? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Yeah why not? do you inform users of this? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to |
| 12 |
> what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people who |
| 13 |
> know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain revbumps are |
| 14 |
> expensive and we do them only when absolutely necessary. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I don't see any reasons not to revbump package even if it was |
| 17 |
hardmasked... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Peter. |
Archives