| 1 |
On 07/11/11 09:45, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Gentoo devs don't mark software as stable, they mark ebuilds as stable. |
| 4 |
> This has no direct link to the usability of the software itself. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Nuh uh. From http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html, |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
arch (x86, ppc-macos) |
| 11 |
Both the package version and the ebuild are widely tested, known to |
| 12 |
work and not have any serious issues on the indicated platform. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Moving from ~arch to arch |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Moving a package from ~arch to arch is done only by the relevant arch |
| 19 |
teams. If you have access to non-x86 hardware but are not on the arch |
| 20 |
teams, you may wish to make individual arrangements — the arch teams are |
| 21 |
happy for help, so long as they know what is going on. Please note that |
| 22 |
x86 is now no longer an exception and stabilisation must be done through |
| 23 |
the x86 arch team unless you have individual arrangements — see GLEP 40 |
| 24 |
for further details. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
For a package to move to stable, the following guidelines must be met: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
* The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first. |
| 29 |
Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a |
| 30 |
guideline. For critical packages, a much longer duration is |
| 31 |
expected. For small packages which have only minor changes |
| 32 |
between versions, a shorter period is sometimes appropriate. |
| 33 |
* The package must not have any non-arch dependencies. |
| 34 |
* The package must not have any severe outstanding bugs or issues. |
| 35 |
* The package must be widely tested. |
| 36 |
* If the package is a library, it should be known not to break any |
| 37 |
package which depends upon it. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
For security fixes, the "reasonable amount of time" guideline may be |
| 40 |
relaxed. See the Vulnerability Treatment Policy |
Archives