On Friday 16 September 2005 03:34 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:15:26 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | not really ... sometimes you want to keep a package in unstable > | forever (like the cvs snapshots i make of e17), or until you work > | some quirks/features out for a new revbump which you would want stable > > Those should be in package.mask. ~arch is for candidates for arch that > haven't yet proven themselves.
ok, e17 packages dont count here. however, your hardcore view i still dont buy. how about the baselayout-1.9.x -> baselayout-1.11.x stabilization process ? are you telling me that arch teams should have had the power to move those into stable without talking to the maintainer ? baselayout may be a core package, but if you continue with your hard rule here, then it doesnt matter. -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
