Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox and kernel panics.

[Mark Knecht]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote:
> On 07/11/11 09:45, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>
>> Gentoo devs don't mark software as stable, they mark ebuilds as stable.
>> This has no direct link to the usability of the software itself.
>>
>>
>
> Nuh uh. From http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html,
>
> arch (x86, ppc-macos)
>    Both the package version and the ebuild are widely tested, known to
>    work and not have any serious issues on the indicated platform.
>
> ...
>
> Moving from ~arch to arch
>
> Moving a package from ~arch to arch is done only by the relevant arch
> teams. If you have access to non-x86 hardware but are not on the arch
> teams, you may wish to make individual arrangements — the arch teams are
> happy for help, so long as they know what is going on. Please note that
> x86 is now no longer an exception and stabilisation must be done through
> the x86 arch team unless you have individual arrangements — see GLEP 40
> for further details.
>
> For a package to move to stable, the following guidelines must be met:
>
>    * The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first.
>      Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a
>      guideline. For critical packages, a much longer duration is
>      expected. For small packages which have only minor changes
>      between versions, a shorter period is sometimes appropriate.
>    * The package must not have any non-arch dependencies.
>    * The package must not have any severe outstanding bugs or issues.
>    * The package must be widely tested.
>    * If the package is a library, it should be known not to break any
>      package which depends upon it.
>
> For security fixes, the "reasonable amount of time" guideline may be
> relaxed. See the Vulnerability Treatment Policy
>
>

Thanks for posting this.

- Mark