| 1 |
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:04, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 12:08, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I don't see why it would not be easy enough to comment the reasons an |
| 4 |
> > ebuild might not be marked stable. Another example that I can think of |
| 5 |
> > is the xorg-x11 ebuilds. You can see an obvious TODO list before it is |
| 6 |
> > considered stable. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Which, by the way, is out of date. Now that you've so kindly reminded |
| 9 |
> me, I'm updating it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
*grin* |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
My point is still pretty valid. This is especially true if bug #'s are |
| 14 |
listed within the ebuild itself. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Perhaps a combination of this and "INDICATOR_ARCH" would be the proper |
| 17 |
solution? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 21 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
| 22 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives