| 1 |
Daniel Drake kirjoitti: |
| 2 |
> Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated |
| 4 |
>> by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention |
| 5 |
>> that as a reason in your post. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody |
| 8 |
> objected timeframe-wise before. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0040.html |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
"The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first. |
| 13 |
Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a |
| 14 |
guideline. For critical packages, a much longer duration is expected. |
| 15 |
For small packages which have only minor changes between versions, a |
| 16 |
shorter period is sometimes appropriate." |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I would consider the kernel a critical package. Sure I could have worded |
| 19 |
my original mail a little better. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regards, |
| 22 |
Petteri |
Archives