Perhaps this could be targetted for stabilization on the basis that: 1) there are no open bugs against it 2) the current version marked as stable is an official beta 3) stabilizing >=5.0.0 would allow closure of bug 342961
amd64 compiles fine. appears to function as stated.
amd64 done. Thanks Blain
Stable for HPPA.
It seems weird to mark -r0 stable when -r1 only fixes typos that cause some usability issues. IOW, -r0 is being marked stable with a runtime issue that will hit users. *xz-utils-5.0.1-r1 (01 Mar 2011) 01 Mar 2011; Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> +xz-utils-5.0.1-r1.ebuild, +files/xz-utils-5.0.1-xzgrep-typo.patch: Fix by Martin Väth for typo in xzgrep #356627 by Diego Elio Pettenò. Can the target be changed here to ensure our users don't hit this [fixed] bug?
I tested =app-arch/xz-utils-5.0.1-r1 on x86. No problems found!
=app-arch/xz-utils-5.0.1-r1 tested on SPARC. unpacking and packing tarballs worked fine. Stabilisation would be good.
it isnt weird at all. the bug in question isnt a regression to the stable version, so users (if they happen to hit the bug) have already been hitting it. which version arch people pick is up to them, but you're asking about an ebuild that has been in the tree for less than 24 hrs (based on when you commented).
ppc/sparc stable
arm stable
stable x86, thanks Andreas
Stable on alpha.
ppc64 stable
ia64/m68k/s390/sh stable, closing