| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 06:34 am, foser wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 20:07 -0500, Jason Huebel wrote: |
| 6 |
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 7 |
> > Hash: SHA1 |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > On Tuesday 22 June 2004 04:54 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 10 |
> > > Option 2: |
| 11 |
> > > STABLE="yes" |
| 12 |
> > > STABLE="no" |
| 13 |
> > > This is pretty straightforward, so I won't go in depth here. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Damn, Donnie beat me to this. I prefer this over all the other solutions |
| 16 |
> > presented. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Read my other reply to where you say the same thing : it's duplication |
| 19 |
> of info. Duplication is bad. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> - foser |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This isn't duplication of information. Whether or not an ebuild is considered |
| 24 |
stable by the arch maintainer is a QA issue and should not affect users. |
| 25 |
Changes to the behaviour of KEYWORDS affects users. Adding a STABLE variable |
| 26 |
does not. There's no reason for these changes to filter down to the user |
| 27 |
level. Change repoman to check for the STABLE variable and portage doesn't |
| 28 |
need to be touched. Change ebump and ekeyword to add/remove the STABLE |
| 29 |
variable as needed. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
- -- |
| 32 |
Jason Huebel |
| 33 |
Gentoo/amd64 Strategic Lead |
| 34 |
Gentoo Developer Relations/Recruiter |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
GPG Public Key: |
| 37 |
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9BA9E230 |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
"Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand." |
| 40 |
Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677) |
| 41 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 42 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
iD8DBQFA2cTIbNgbbJup4jARAgjdAJ4ncIOisSpJfG0So0FPMKcNk/DlTwCdFPZ4 |
| 45 |
bGi896cFCSPtNXnD+ostufg= |
| 46 |
=lStT |
| 47 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives