Please mark the following ebuilds stable on alpha. The applications are extensively tested and used by me for more than half a year. net-misc/neon-0.24.6 dev-util/subversion-1.0.3 dev-libs/libots-2.2.7-r1 app-admin/analog-5.32 sys-apps/smartmontools-5.26 dev-python/mod_python-3.0.4-r2 app-admin/webalizer-2.01.10-r4 net-firewall/shorewall-1.4.10b app-text/enscript-1.6.3-r1 Oh net-zope/zope-2.6.4 seems working too. Perhaps a ~alpha would be fine... Thanks & greets Marc
Hi Marc. Thanks for your report. I keyworded all the packages although quite a few of them just got ~alpha keywords.
Sorry for reopening this bug-report. Please don't get me wrong, but I don't agree with your strategy. For example, why do you mark smartmontools/smartmontools-5.30 ~alpha and doing nothing in smartmontools/smartmontools-5.26 ? On the opposite you mark mod_python/mod_python-3.1.3 as ~alpha but mod_python/mod_python-3.0.4-r2.ebuild was never keyworded with [~]alpha. Why not just mark my suggested ebuilds stable and do a ~alpha on the newer versions? The newer versions, in particular the "not keyworded" ebuilds, were probably never tested and could be unstable. (e.g libots, shorewall). What are you waiting for? More success reports on alpha? All my mentioned ebuilds are extensively tested by me and could be marked stable without any fear. It's just my opinion... what do you think? Thank you for your time
Policy says to mark ebuilds ~arch for a period of time, usually no less than 2 weeks. I'd like to follow that policy and (hopefully) get a bit more testing before marking them stable.
Ok, accepted. Thank you
Ok, closing again :) I'm fairly active bumping ebuilds to stable, so I should get around to them again reasonably soon.
