Bug 396469 – Please mark gentoo-sources-3.1.6 and vanilla-sources-3.1.6 stable

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Mike Pagano 2011-12-29 23:52:14 UTC]

Arch teams, please consider stabilizing the 3.1.6 kernel, both Gentoo and vanilla versions. There are no widespread issues being tracked at this time.

[Comment 1 Markos Chandras (RETIRED) 2011-12-30 09:52:18 UTC]

amd64 done

[Comment 2 Michael Weber (RETIRED) 2012-01-02 15:04:12 UTC]

sparc, works for me (ultrasparcIIe)

[Comment 3 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2012-01-03 12:42:46 UTC]

Stable for HPPA.

[Comment 4 KinG-InFeT 2012-01-04 15:26:08 UTC]

x86 stable

[Comment 5 Michael Weber (RETIRED) 2012-01-04 23:26:34 UTC]

ppc, works for me (G4, ppc 7400)

[Comment 6 Marcin Mirosław 2012-01-06 21:42:23 UTC]

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"

[Comment 7 Jeff (JD) Horelick (RETIRED) 2012-01-07 00:14:36 UTC]

(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.

[Comment 8 Michael Weber (RETIRED) 2012-01-08 14:01:44 UTC]

(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.

[Comment 9 Marcin Mirosław 2012-01-08 14:54:06 UTC]

Thanks for detailed explanation. Indeed "x86 stable" triggered my question, i was disturbed somebody forgot to commit changes.

[Comment 10 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. (RETIRED) 2012-01-13 07:49:15 UTC]

x86 stable

[Comment 11 Raúl Porcel (RETIRED) 2012-01-15 18:42:35 UTC]

alpha/arm/ia64/s390/sh/sparc stable

[Comment 12 Joe Jezak (RETIRED) 2012-01-30 00:16:53 UTC]

Newer sources are marked ppc/ppc64 stable. Closing.