| 1 |
On Saturday 25 February 2006 12:57, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] What happens with masked packages?': |
| 3 |
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:57:43 -0600 "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> <bss03@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> | > ~arch means a package is a candidate for going into arch after |
| 7 |
> | > further testing, if said testing does not turn up new bugs. This |
| 8 |
> | > means that both the ebuild *and* the package should be likely to be |
| 9 |
> | > stable. |
| 10 |
> | |
| 11 |
> | So, betas shouldn't ever be ~arch? Or is your definition of stable |
| 12 |
> | broad enough to include betas? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Entirely dependent on the upstream. I've had Vim beta releases in |
| 15 |
> ~arch, for example, because I'm confident in upstream's ability to do |
| 16 |
> beta releases without screwing up. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So, it's based on the collective opinion of the gentoo developers? |
| 19 |
Wouldn't it be better to put that in the hands of the gentoo user? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> The -* abuse is one of the many things on QA's list of "stuff we want |
| 22 |
> to get fixed". However, it's considered extremely low priority on |
| 23 |
> existing packages. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
As it should be, since there are well-known user work-arounds. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. |
| 29 |
bss03@××××××××××.com |
| 30 |
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives