| 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 |
Archives