First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 74656
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Rainer Größlinger <scandium@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Rainer Größlinger <scandium@gentoo.org>
Add CC:
CC:
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

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

Bug 74656 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 74656 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: 2004-12-16 10:51 0000 
Please mark dev-util/cvs-1.11.18 stable on your architecture (current stable is
1.11.17).

This is *not* a security update, but it fixes a few bugs, like #74548

------- Comment #1 From SpanKY 2004-12-16 10:58:27 0000 ------- 
any reason for now marking cvs-1.12.9 stable ?

------- Comment #2 From SpanKY 2004-12-16 11:00:19 0000 ------- 
err, i meant 'not' instead of 'now'

------- Comment #3 From Rainer Größlinger 2004-12-16 11:48:08 0000 ------- 
For me, the main reason against 1.12.x isn't that there are problems (besides
the one you reported which happens with >=1.12.10, I am not aware of any), but
that I don't know if it works for everybody.

e.g. I don't know too many server people who are using 1.12.x, especially with
the different methods possible (ext, pserver, etc.) and different
configurations.

But generally, I am not against getting 1.12.x into stable, the problem is I
have almost zero server-side feedback from 1.12.x people.

------- Comment #4 From SpanKY 2004-12-16 11:52:10 0000 ------- 
arm/hppa/ia64/s390 stable for 1.11.18

i havent found any problems with cvs-1.12.9 myself ... i'd just be against 1.12.10 and beyond until the bug i reported is resolved ;)

------- Comment #5 From Rainer Größlinger 2004-12-16 11:52:53 0000 ------- 
oh, I am aware of one more problem: bug #72251
Which seems to be ok with 1.12.9 but broke with >=1.12.10...

Seems like 1.12.10 and 1.12.11 have some issues that weren't there before...

Anyway, let's please go for 1.11.18 now and once your problem and the pam problem of #72251 is fixed, we'll work on getting 1.12.x stable.

(btw. we should perhaps stop discussing this here since all the arch@gentoo.org people are CCed and most of them are probably not interested in that discussion :)

------- Comment #6 From Gustavo Zacarias (RETIRED) 2004-12-17 04:39:23 0000 ------- 
sparc a-go-go.

------- Comment #7 From Dylan Carlson (RETIRED) 2004-12-17 23:56:35 0000 ------- 
My bad; amd64 marked stable ... a half day ago.

------- Comment #8 From Markus Rothe 2004-12-18 12:33:25 0000 ------- 
stable on ppc64

------- Comment #9 From Daniel Black 2004-12-18 20:40:55 0000 ------- 
ppc stable

------- Comment #10 From Bryan Østergaard (RETIRED) 2004-12-19 09:32:17 0000 ------- 
Alpha stable.

------- Comment #11 From Hardave Riar (RETIRED) 2005-01-01 18:04:18 0000 ------- 
Stable on mips.

Closing.
First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug