On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 04:24:58 +0300, David Relson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:23:51 -0700
Steve Dibb wrote:
I've been reading this thread as well as the earlier (July) threads
(from gmane) and notice that everyone is discussing "30 days",
"automatic", and "stabilization
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:23:51 -0700
Steve Dibb wrote:
> Daevid Vincent wrote:
> > But as I read this thread, it seems that in effect, I won't really
> > be getting a more stable system, I'll just be getting an older, out
> > of date one, as nobody is actively monitoring packages and then
> > flaggi
Daevid Vincent wrote:
But as I read this thread, it seems that in effect, I won't really be
getting a more stable system, I'll just be getting an older, out of date
one, as nobody is actively monitoring packages and then flagging them as
stable. :(
The problem, like many other things, comes d
This is a little upsetting to learn that effectively "stability" happens as
an after thought.
I used to run a hybrid of ~x86 and stable, but I've gotten so tired of
seeing new package versions every day, I felt I was spending more time
compiling to get the latest versions, than actually using my
Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
This is interesting stuff that I didn't know. So if I've been using
KDevelop 3.3.2 forever
because 3.3.3, 3.3.4, and 3.3.5 are all ~x86, it's not necessarily
because 3.3.5 is
broken, just that nobody's certified it? How does this happen?
KDevelop is a pretty
big beast, an
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:33:31 -0700 Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:49:30 +0300, Robert Cernansky
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:49:48 -0700 Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Most stuff doesnt g
Robert Cernansky wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:49:48 -0700 Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
Looking at the Portage tree, I see that some packages are kept ~x86
for long time without any bugs referenced in the changelog or
Bugzilla. How are they being made stable
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:04:26 +0300 Andrey Gerasimenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the threads. My impression is that the way stabilization
> works should be described in a place of high visibility, at least in
> the FAQ. I beleive this question will be asked again and again if
> new us
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:49:30 +0300, Robert Cernansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:49:48 -0700 Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
> Looking at the Portage tree, I see that some packages are kept ~x86
> for long time without any bugs referenced
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:49:48 -0700 Steve Dibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
> > Looking at the Portage tree, I see that some packages are kept ~x86
> > for long time without any bugs referenced in the changelog or
> > Bugzilla. How are they being made stable (or where in
Steve Dibb wrote:
Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
Looking at the Portage tree, I see that some packages are kept ~x86
for long time without any bugs referenced in the changelog or
Bugzilla. How are they being made stable (or where in the docs is the
process described)?
They need to be in the tree f
Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
Looking at the Portage tree, I see that some packages are kept ~x86
for long time without any bugs referenced in the changelog or
Bugzilla. How are they being made stable (or where in the docs is the
process described)?
They need to be in the tree for at least 30 days
Looking at the Portage tree, I see that some packages are kept ~x86 for
long time without any bugs referenced in the changelog or Bugzilla. How
are they being made stable (or where in the docs is the process described)?
--
Andrei Gerasimenko
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
13 matches
Mail list logo
