1 |
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Because an older package is stable, we are somehow forced to continue |
4 |
> stabling newer packages if requested either via a stabling request or |
5 |
> security issue. In the first case we have to stable to allow older |
6 |
> ebuilds to be cleaned up, in the second we have to table in order to |
7 |
> take advantage of the security advisory. See the "Ruby issue" email for |
8 |
> how to deal with packages that obviously noone knows what to do with. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> > Sorry if I somehow missed an e-mail detailing this; |
11 |
> |
12 |
> You haven't, it was in my initial proposal. You trigger me to put this |
13 |
> somewhere on the web for reference. |
14 |
|
15 |
I think you are referring to this proposal? |
16 |
|
17 |
"I propose to keep the following keywording rules for whatever we do from |
18 |
now: |
19 |
1) only keyword new packages ~ppc-macos; don't stable them after a month |
20 |
2) only stable new ebuilds if this is required by security stuff and we |
21 |
have an older ebuild that is stable" |
22 |
|
23 |
Maybe you can add, |
24 |
|
25 |
3) if need be, a non-system package may be stabled, even if it has |
26 |
collisions. |
27 |
|
28 |
and then add autoconf-2.59 to the Panther base system for the progressive |
29 |
profile, and mask ruby from the Panther conservative profile. |
30 |
|
31 |
-f |
32 |
-- |
33 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |