| 1 |
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:44:32 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 9/3/06, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Because the thought that stable is always "stable" or that because |
| 6 |
> > we released things are "stable" is incorrect ;) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> You're not supposed to break the stable tree; that surely must include |
| 9 |
> stabilising a compiler (which is the _default_ for new installs) that |
| 10 |
> can't compile all the packages marked stable for your arch. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's just not feasible, as we've identified before. You can't expect |
| 13 |
sys-devel/gcc to take responsibility for every package in the tree in |
| 14 |
all configurations. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives