| 1 |
i understand how the process is actually implement, my question was more |
| 2 |
towards the process... do we have any formal/informal guidelines about |
| 3 |
when a package is ready to be moved from package.mask to unstable to |
| 4 |
stable? based on labeling a subset of the tree as "unstable" it seems |
| 5 |
redundant to have package.mask as well. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
hopefully that makes my question a little more clear |
| 8 |
d |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 14:48, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 11 |
> its all the same portage tree ... |
| 12 |
> variables and the mask file are how we currently create |
| 13 |
> these 3 levels. 'stable' is x86, 'unstable' is ~x86, 'broken' |
| 14 |
> is the mask file. the end user, without modifications to |
| 15 |
> their setup, is at the stable level |
| 16 |
> -mike |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> On Tuesday 22 October 2002 03:20 pm, Dave Nellans wrote: |
| 19 |
> > now that gentoo has stable/unstable can someone let me know where masked |
| 20 |
> > ebuilds now fit into this process? i haven't heard any good |
| 21 |
> > explainations of how the system is supposed to work now with three |
| 22 |
> > levels before it hits an "end" user. |
| 23 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 24 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 25 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 26 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Dave Nellans |
| 30 |
605 S. Grand St. Apt 3 |
| 31 |
Salt Lake City, UT 84102 |
| 32 |
801-580-0899 |
| 33 |
http://lucy.wox.org/~dnellans/ |
Archives