On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.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
