| 1 |
On Friday 16 September 2005 03:34 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:15:26 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | not really ... sometimes you want to keep a package in unstable |
| 6 |
> | forever (like the cvs snapshots i make of e17), or until you work |
| 7 |
> | some quirks/features out for a new revbump which you would want stable |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch that |
| 10 |
> haven't yet proven themselves. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
ok, e17 packages dont count here. however, your hardcore view i still dont |
| 13 |
buy. how about the baselayout-1.9.x -> baselayout-1.11.x stabilization |
| 14 |
process ? are you telling me that arch teams should have had the power to |
| 15 |
move those into stable without talking to the maintainer ? baselayout may be |
| 16 |
a core package, but if you continue with your hard rule here, then it doesnt |
| 17 |
matter. |
| 18 |
-mike |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives