| 1 |
Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> Daniel Drake kirjoitti: |
| 3 |
>> Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated |
| 5 |
>>> by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention |
| 6 |
>>> that as a reason in your post. |
| 7 |
>> At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody |
| 8 |
>> objected timeframe-wise before. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0040.html |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> "The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first. |
| 13 |
> Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a |
| 14 |
> guideline. For critical packages, a much longer duration is expected. |
| 15 |
> For small packages which have only minor changes between versions, a |
| 16 |
> shorter period is sometimes appropriate." |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I would consider the kernel a critical package. Sure I could have worded |
| 19 |
> my original mail a little better. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
'is expected'. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Portage is also a critical package and I doubt it's ever spent 30 days |
| 24 |
in ~arch. As always, maintainer knows best (and you can obviously blame |
| 25 |
dsd if all hell breaks loose :)) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-Alec |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives