| Summary: | Please mark gentoo-sources-3.1.6 and vanilla-sources-3.1.6 stable | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Mike Pagano <mpagano> |
| Component: | [OLD] Keywording and Stabilization | Assignee: | Gentoo Kernel Bug Wranglers and Kernel Maintainers <kernel> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | borovoy.anton, bug, nikoli |
| Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | STABLEREQ |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Mike Pagano
2011-12-29 23:52:14 UTC
amd64 done sparc, works for me (ultrasparcIIe) Stable for HPPA. x86 stable ppc, works for me (G4, ppc 7400) Sorry if it will be stupid question. There are comments informing that archs: sparc, hppa, x86, ppc are marked as a stable for gentoo-sources-3.1.6. A few days pasts, package are still keyworded with ~. Is everything correct? $ cat /usr/portage/metadata/timestamp.x 1325853301 Fri Jan 6 12:35:01 2012 UTC $ grep KEYWORDS /usr/portage/sys-kernel/gentoo-sources/gentoo-sources-3.1.6.ebuild KEYWORDS="~alpha amd64 ~arm hppa ~ia64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~s390 ~sh ~sparc ~x86" (In reply to comment #6) > Sorry if it will be stupid question. There are comments informing that archs: > sparc, hppa, x86, ppc are marked as a stable for gentoo-sources-3.1.6. A few > days pasts, package are still keyworded with ~. Is everything correct? > $ cat /usr/portage/metadata/timestamp.x > 1325853301 Fri Jan 6 12:35:01 2012 UTC > $ grep KEYWORDS > /usr/portage/sys-kernel/gentoo-sources/gentoo-sources-3.1.6.ebuild > KEYWORDS="~alpha amd64 ~arm hppa ~ia64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~s390 ~sh ~sparc ~x86" That simply means that the people who said it was stable (some of them) are not developers so they were simply archtesting (whether officially or unofficially) and effectively just saying that's it working for them. (In reply to comment #7) > That simply means that the people who said it was stable (some of them) are not > developers so they were simply archtesting (whether officially or unofficially) > and effectively just saying that's it working for them. Correct, i've commit access, but stabling a kernel should be cross checked by more than one person. The regular text is "Stable for .." or "... stable", i diverted to "..., works for me" - i hoped that was clear. (In reply to comment #4) > x86 stable by non-dev (assumed by the non @gentoo.org email) is misleading and should be avoided. Thanks for detailed explanation. Indeed "x86 stable" triggered my question, i was disturbed somebody forgot to commit changes. x86 stable alpha/arm/ia64/s390/sh/sparc stable Newer sources are marked ppc/ppc64 stable. Closing. |