| Summary: | app-portage/layman-1.4.1 stable request | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Sebastian Pipping <sping> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Christian Ruppert (idl0r) <idl0r> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | dolsen, tools-portage |
| Priority: | High | Keywords: | STABLEREQ |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Sebastian Pipping
2010-10-29 23:45:43 UTC
amd64 ok amd64 done. Thanks Agostino x86 stable, closing Can you please stabilise layman-1.4.1 on SPARC please? (Cc: to sparc devs added) Tested on SPARC, and found to be working well with overlays. Re-opening for sparc... arm/sparc done, closing. I don't understand what happened here. Many arches forgotten, reopening and assigning to maintainer(s) per metadata.xml Keywords: layman-1.2.3[0]: alpha arm ia64 ppc ppc64 Keywords: layman-1.3.3[0]: hppa Keywords: layman-1.3.4[0]: Keywords: layman-1.4.1[0]: amd64 sparc x86 (In reply to comment #7) > I don't understand what happened here. I requested stabilization for mainstream arches only. Afaik that is aligned with policies. What should I have done instead and why? Stable on alpha. (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > I don't understand what happened here. > > I requested stabilization for mainstream arches only. > Afaik that is aligned with policies. No. The policy is more to ensure that new arches aren't added to stablereqs for no reason. (Where 'no reason' means that there is no user interest) > What should I have done instead and why? When requesting a new version stable, it is advised that all arches that were previously marked stable are included. Else, you have this odd mix of some arches getting newer versions than some other arches within the stable tree. arm/ppc stable @darkside Thanks for the explanation (comment #10). ia64 stable Stable for HPPA. ppc64 stable, last arch closing |
