Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 180360
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: impulze@impulze.org
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 180360 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 180360 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug

Description:   Opened: 2007-05-30 16:40 0000 
Is it possible to get sys-apps/slocate-3.1-r1 stable? it seems to be in the
tree without a change for quite some time now according to
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/slocate

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

------- Comment #1 From Paolo Pedroni 2007-10-03 10:24:11 0000 ------- 
There is at least one open bug against slocate-3.1 (#133053), which, by the way
has not seen any action since December 2006 (!!!). Personally I've been using
slocate-3.1 for ages without problems, but marking packages with open bugs
stable is against policy.

------- Comment #2 From SpanKY 2007-10-03 12:57:38 0000 ------- 
no it isnt

------- Comment #3 From Paolo Pedroni 2007-10-03 13:49:18 0000 ------- 
Quoting from the ebuild policy
(http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1):

"Moving package versions from ~ARCH to ARCH
 When a package version has proved stable for sufficient time and the Gentoo
maintainer of the package is confident that the upgrade will not break a
regular Gentoo user's machine, then it can be moved from ~ARCH to ARCH. An
indication of the package's stability would be no verified or unresolved bug
report for a month after the version's introduction."

It's not exactly what I said, but close enough IMHO. Care to explain the
difference? I'm sincerely curious.

------- Comment #4 From SpanKY 2007-10-04 04:46:19 0000 ------- 
the policy is not hard, it's left up to maintainers to decide what's best. 
thus your statement that "marking packages with open bugs stable is against
policy" is clearly incorrect.

------- Comment #5 From Dawid Węgliński 2008-02-04 18:04:48 0000 ------- 
x86 stable

------- Comment #6 From Jeroen Roovers 2008-02-04 20:38:23 0000 ------- 
Stable for HPPA.

------- Comment #7 From Brent Baude 2008-02-06 02:06:12 0000 ------- 
ppc64 stable

------- Comment #8 From Ferris McCormick 2008-02-06 14:05:14 0000 ------- 
Sparc stable.  The ewarn about rebuilding the database really means it; after
you do that, everything works as usual.

------- Comment #9 From Christoph Mende 2008-02-06 14:30:46 0000 ------- 
amd64 stable

------- Comment #10 From Raúl Porcel 2008-02-06 14:35:07 0000 ------- 
alpha/ia64 stable

------- Comment #11 From nixnut 2008-02-06 18:03:32 0000 ------- 
ppc stable

------- Comment #12 From Christian Faulhammer 2008-03-16 08:53:29 0000 ------- 
All done by Mike, closing
Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug