| Summary: | app-portage/portage-utils-0.2.1 stable request | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Stefan Huber <shuber> |
| Component: | Tools | Assignee: | Portage Utils Team <portage-utils> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | Keywords: | STABLEREQ |
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Stefan Huber
2009-10-26 08:51:00 UTC
It doesn't work like that, instead you should be asking 0.2.1 for stable. Let me make my point more clear: A major feature (qdepends) of versions <=0.2 are broken due to a segfault. Therefore they should be hard-masked. As a consequence and under the assumption that there should be at least one stable version, one would have to mark 0.2.1 as stable. However, in the first place I argue to hard mask versions <=0.2 since it is not completely clear to me whether there should be a stable version at all. That depends on the quality of version 0.2.1 (and future versions above). Anyhow, I am not maintainer, so I am glad if my suggestions are discussed. now stable |