Output from emerge info on my system: Gentoo Base System version 1.4.16 Portage 2.0.51-r15 (default-linux/amd64/2004.3, gcc-3.4.3, glibc-2.3.4.20040808-r1, 2.6.9-gentoo-r14 x86_64) ================================================================= System uname: 2.6.9-gentoo-r14 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+ Python: dev-lang/python-2.3.4 [2.3.4 (#1, Jan 25 2005, 19:36:58)] dev-lang/python: 2.3.4 sys-devel/autoconf: 2.59-r5 sys-devel/automake: 1.8.5-r1 sys-devel/binutils: 2.15.92.0.2-r1 sys-devel/libtool: 1.5.2-r7 virtual/os-headers: 2.6.8.1-r2 ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd64" AUTOCLEAN="yes" CFLAGS="-pipe -O2" CHOST="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu" CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc /usr/kde/2/share/config /usr/kde/3.3/env /usr/kde/3.3/share/config /usr/kde/3.3/shutdown /usr/kde/3/share/config /usr/lib/X11/xkb /usr/lib/mozilla/defaults/pref /usr/share/config /var/qmail/control" CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/gconf /etc/terminfo /etc/env.d" CXXFLAGS="-pipe -O2" DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles" FEATURES="autoaddcvs autoconfig ccache distlocks sandbox" GENTOO_MIRRORS="http://gentoo.ccccom.com http://mirrors.tds.net/gentoo ftp://mirrors.tds.net/gentoo ftp://ftp.snt.utwente.nl/pub/os/linux/gentoo ftp://ftp.heanet.ie/pub/gentoo/" MAKEOPTS="-j2" PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages" PORTAGE_TMPDIR="/var/tmp" PORTDIR="/usr/portage" SYNC="rsync://rsync.us.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage" USE="amd64 X aalib acpi alsa apache2 berkdb bitmap-fonts bzlib crypt cups emacs esd exif f77 fam fbcon flac font-server foomaticdb fortran gdbm gif gnome gphoto2 gpm gstreamer gtk guile imagemagick imap imlib ipv6 jabber java jp2 jpeg junit lzw lzw-tiff maildir mbox mikmod motif mozilla multilib ncurses nls oggvorbis opengl oscar oss pam pdflib perl png postgres ppds python qt readline sdl slang ssl svg tcltk tcpd tiff truetype truetype-fonts type1-fonts usb userlocales xml xml2 xmms xpm xrandr xv zlib" Unset: ASFLAGS, CBUILD, CTARGET, LDFLAGS, PORTDIR_OVERLAY Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
-r3 exists solely for hppa. Please don't ask for marking ebuilds stable, unless the ebuild was added ~50 days before and you really need a feature. Also search for open bugs before asking. There are reasons, why ebuilds don't go straigt stable.
Sorry, I was only reporting that it works for me, as requested by the AMD64 team. I'm not asking that it be made stable, just trying to provide a potentially helpful data point in deciding when to make it stable. If there's a better way to do this than by filing a bug report, then the AMD64 docs should be updated accordingly. If we're really supposed to wait 50 days before reporting that it works (which doesn't make much sense to me), than this should also be mentioned in those docs. The docs that I refer to are at: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/technotes.xml?part=1&chap=3 The following is a direct quote: "Your diligent efforts in testing applications is[sic] greatly appreciated. In the following we want to explain the steps to submitting a bug report if you want to let us know that a masked application works on your Gentoo/AMD64 installation." It continues to describe the process, which I followed exactly. If I'm misinterpreting something, please correct me. If the -r3 ebuild is for HPPA only and you don't want amd64 users (with the best of intentions) testing it out for you and reporting their results, then perhaps the ~amd64 keyword should be removed.
>If we're really supposed to wait 50 days before reporting that it works (which doesn't make much sense to me), than this should also be mentioned in those docs. Well, our ebuild policy is ~30 days before anything may go stable, if there is no major bug. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=3 Regarding stabilization developers agree to disagree. I for one think no arch should go stable before the maintainer of the particular packages decides, that the ebuild is stable. In this case a quick look at the ChangeLog reveals, that it makes not much sense to let everyone recompile just to have the latest ebuild revision stable. amd64 herd: It's quite annoying, when every arch has it's own "bug policy".
That all makes sense to me. I'm sorry to be a pain! I was only trying to be helpful. Feel free to ignore/reject this "bug", and I won't open it again.
i won't mark it stable before maintainer arch did so. feel free to reopen when that's the case
