| Summary: | portage-2.1 stable request | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Zac Medico <zmedico> |
| Component: | Core - Ebuild Support | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | qmx2352, raybooysen, sgtphou |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | 2.1 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Bug Depends on: | 135427 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Zac Medico
2006-06-09 08:04:04 UTC
stable on ppc64 stable on ppc HPPA ready (tm) portage-2.1 USE="-build -doc" LINGUAS="-pl" works fine for me on x86. x86 done SPARC Stable WORKSFORME *portage-2.1 (09 Jun 2006) 09 Jun 2006; Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> +portage-2.1.ebuild: 2.1 final release. Why wasn't this version given the usual month? I think the reason should have been stated in the bug. (In reply to comment #8) > Why wasn't this version given the usual month? I think the reason should have > been stated in the bug. The code had been in a stablization phase for over a month with constant testing of all the changes in ~arch 2.1_rc* releases. After that, there was no doubt in my mind that it was safe to be marked stable. (In reply to comment #8) > *portage-2.1 (09 Jun 2006) > > 09 Jun 2006; Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> +portage-2.1.ebuild: > 2.1 final release. > > Why wasn't this version given the usual month? I think the reason should have > been stated in the bug. > Arch teams are free to ignore the maintainers request and wait, if you want to. That is your perogitive as an arch team. AMD64 version works fine here. 2.1-r1 has been released. See bug 137445 for details. |
