1 |
On Friday 16 September 2005 03:02 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:48:45 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> wrote: |
5 |
> | > Take it out of package.mask and leave it for thirty |
6 |
> | > (package-dependent) days. If there is a pressing (eg security) |
7 |
> | > reason for it to go to stable sooner than would normally be |
8 |
> | > expected, file a bug and Cc: the relevant arch teams. |
9 |
> | |
10 |
> | I was thinking more like signalling that it shouldn't be stable yet, |
11 |
> | but shouldn't be masked either. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Well, if it's in ~arch it's a candidate to go to stable after further |
14 |
> testing. If a package maintainer isn't prepared to have a package moved |
15 |
> to stable, they shouldn't take it out of package.mask. |
16 |
|
17 |
not really ... sometimes you want to keep a package in unstable forever (like |
18 |
the cvs snapshots i make of e17), or until you work some quirks/features out |
19 |
for a new revbump which you would want stable |
20 |
-mike |
21 |
-- |
22 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |