Re: [gentoo-dev] profile shift for arm/s390/sh from "stable" to "dev"
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > ive made this shift in profiles.desc: > > sed -ir '/^(arm|s390|sh)/s:stable:dev:' profiles.desc > > if/when we get dedicated arch maintainers, they can think about > > shifting back > > for the confused ... you should still be adding these arches for > stable requests and you should not be dropping their keywords > -mike Just for the extra dense among us, does this mean that when a security bug such as 216850[1] gets closed with no response from those arches, that in such cases we are allowed punt the affected ebuild, even though it will break your stable? [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/216850 -- /PA signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] profile shift for arm/s390/sh from "stable" to "dev"
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote: > ive made this shift in profiles.desc: > sed -ir '/^(arm|s390|sh)/s:stable:dev:' profiles.desc > if/when we get dedicated arch maintainers, they can think about shifting > back for the confused ... you should still be adding these arches for stable requests and you should not be dropping their keywords -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] profile shift for arm/s390/sh from "stable" to "dev"
ive made this shift in profiles.desc: sed -ir '/^(arm|s390|sh)/s:stable:dev:' profiles.desc if/when we get dedicated arch maintainers, they can think about shifting back -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
