| 1 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:12:56 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > Well, if it's in ~arch it's a candidate to go to stable after |
| 5 |
| > further testing. If a package maintainer isn't prepared to have a |
| 6 |
| > package moved to stable, they shouldn't take it out of package.mask. |
| 7 |
| |
| 8 |
| The 30 days are just a rule, there are enough packages which surely |
| 9 |
| need a longer testing period, even if they work flawlessly. Or would |
| 10 |
| you mark gcc 4.0 stable after 30 days? I think that's what Paul |
| 11 |
| wanted to say. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
For that, I'd point you at the devmanual version of keywording policy, |
| 14 |
which is a hell of a lot better written and includes an explicit remark |
| 15 |
about core system components needing a lot more than 30 days. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~plasmaroo/devmanual/keywording/ |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Plus for stuff like gcc, it's very much an arch decision, not a package |
| 20 |
maintainer decision. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 24 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 25 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives