| 1 |
Matthias Langer posted <1142778259.17324.16.camel@××××××××××.ruz-net>, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:24:19 +0100: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I'm just curious: What is the reason that firefox-1.5.x is still in |
| 5 |
> ~arch ? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
General policy is that an ebuild should be bug-free in ~arch for 30 days |
| 8 |
before it is stabilized. Individual herds and maintainers may have their |
| 9 |
own policies, but the above 30 day guideline is the general Gentoo rule of |
| 10 |
thumb. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Looking at the changelog, mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1-r2 was only added to the |
| 13 |
tree on February 24. The -r2 indicates updates serious enough to bump the |
| 14 |
release number were released at least twice, and the 1.5 ebuilds are at |
| 15 |
-r9, indicating 10 versions (the first being -r0, not marked with an |
| 16 |
release number, of course). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That's a /lot/ of versions! I'd guess there have simply been enough |
| 19 |
issues that no version of 1.5 has yet made it 30 days bug-free in ~arch, |
| 20 |
altho the .0.1-r2 version above is getting close to 30 days in ~arch now, |
| 21 |
tho I don't know its bug status. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I often check the portage tree changelogs and Gentoo bugzilla site status |
| 24 |
of particular packages that I'm interested in. I'm glad the info is |
| 25 |
available, as it has proven useful quite often. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 29 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 30 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 31 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives