| 1 |
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 14:46, Steve Dibb wrote: |
| 2 |
> That does bring up an interesting question though -- at what point do you |
| 3 |
> just ignore the arch and move on so that development can continue? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I just ignore the arches these days. After all, they ignore me. dhcp clients |
| 6 |
where modified to be independant of baselayout and arches had stable bugs for |
| 7 |
these. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
baselayout-1.12 then went stable even though the required dhcp clients for the |
| 10 |
more obscure arches did not. As of right now, baselayout-1.12 is stable on |
| 11 |
arm, but udhcpc will not work on it unless they use unstable udhcpc. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Another example - kbd-1.12-r8 has a patch to fix loading unimaps, which a user |
| 14 |
submitted patch for console font needs. I've just filed a stable request for |
| 15 |
it even though r7 has got an outstanding stable bug for almost 2 months. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
How long should I wait before I wang a fixed consoelfont script into |
| 18 |
baselayout that relies on this? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
With all the of the above considered, imagine the irony of me filing a stable |
| 21 |
bug for kbd-1.12-r8 and someone stabling it on sparc :P |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Roy Marples <uberlord@g.o> |
| 25 |
Gentoo Developer (baselayout, networking) |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives