As I read in its changelog, it's needed for python-3.4 Thanks
How soon is this needed? If it's not urgent I'd be keen to wait a little bit longer and target a newer version.
Well... looking to the other pending bugs blocking the parent one I guess you can wait a bit still if needed :)
Looks like this is now the last one pending to CC arches :/
3.2.1 has been in testing for just over a month now. A few issues have appeared: bug #532426, bug #546516 (affecting only an unstable package), and bug #548488 (patch provided). Current stable is just over a year old. @kde, any other opinions on how to proceed? I'm inclined to CC archs.
3.2.2 solves a few regressions. Let's CC arch teams in about a week when the 30 days is up.
I don't think arm64 is considered a stable arch yet. tgall or dlan can chime in, I believe they both have boards and are working on it. I'm still trying to find the free time to work on getting mine set up.
(In reply to Steev Klimaszewski from comment #6) > I don't think arm64 is considered a stable arch yet. tgall or dlan can > chime in, I believe they both have boards and are working on it. I'm still > trying to find the free time to work on getting mine set up. It's up to you guys of course, but it's already been stable since bug #517016.
(In reply to Michael Palimaka (kensington) from comment #7) [...] > It's up to you guys of course, but it's already been stable since bug > #517016. In general, I have seen they are doing like sh/s390... : they simply move things to stable on their own , most of the times apart of bug reports ;)
amd64 stable
Stable for HPPA PPC64.
x86 stable
Stable on alpha.
ppc stable
sparc stable
arm stable
No longer in the stable branch for ppc - why? ref: https://packages.gentoo.org/category/dev-util Latest ebuild installs 2.8.12.2-r1, deletes 3.2.2
(In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #13) > ppc stable Do you forgot to mark it stable or was the comment placed in the wrong bug?
Continuing in bug #561620.