| 1 |
On Friday 16 September 2005 21:34, 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 |
It's often the case that those ebuilds in principle work, but there are other |
| 13 |
reasons for not marking stable yet. Some packages for example can have |
| 14 |
upgrade problems for stable users while being stable for testing (by benefit |
| 15 |
of allready having passed such upgrade problems). Masking the ebuild is not |
| 16 |
really an option (causing testing users to go through unnecessary hoops |
| 17 |
again), while marking stable is also no option. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Paul |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 23 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 24 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 25 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives