| 1 |
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 15:53, Caleb Tennis wrote: |
| 2 |
> I didn't intend for it to be package.mask'd - it's quite stable, |
| 3 |
I'd like to disagree: Bug 58527 |
| 4 |
Konqueror is consistently segfaulting on my machine, so I'd like to keep |
| 5 |
3.3_beta masked until 3.3 final arrives. |
| 6 |
3.3 is still a beta, so pushing it in ~x86 seems like a very strange |
| 7 |
decision to me. ~x86 is for unstable _ebuilds_, not unstable packages as |
| 8 |
far as I know. |
| 9 |
> we want to |
| 10 |
> get the testing in ~unstable, and it's only listed for x86 and amd64, both of |
| 11 |
> which are stable up to the latest version. Plus, it won't interfere with |
| 12 |
> anyone running 3.2 anyway. |
| 13 |
Unless, like, erm ... it doesn't work? Then it might just interfere a |
| 14 |
tiny bit. |
| 15 |
</sarcasm> |
| 16 |
> Reverting vapier's package.mask. |
| 17 |
What's the policy on this? |
| 18 |
As much as I like bleeding edge stuff, I'd like to keep the bleeding as |
| 19 |
small as possible :-) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Patrick |
Archives