Archives
Archives
| From: | Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations | ||
| Date: | Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:36:20 | ||
| Message-Id: | e117dbb90911040436h249ce099s1bd09367b932f1bb@mail.gmail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations by Christian Faulhammer |
||
| 1 | What about ppc64? They are MONTHS behind on stabilization, |
| 2 | even for security bugs (see bug 281821 for example). The Qt team |
| 3 | feels this is no longer acceptable. We propose that any arch that |
| 4 | can't keep up will be demoted to experimental status. |
| 5 | |
| 6 | -- |
| 7 | Ben de Groot |
| 8 | Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) |
| 9 | ______________________________________________________ |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations | Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Improve policy of stabilizations | Joseph Jezak <josejx@g.o> |