From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5498 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2004 09:01:43 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Oct 2004 09:01:43 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CHIXO-0005xS-To for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:01:43 +0000 Received: (qmail 9541 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2004 09:01:42 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 16481 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2004 09:01:42 +0000 From: Christian Parpart Organization: Gentoo Linux To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:01:36 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <1097526348.30232.6.camel@helen.science.oregonstate.edu> <200410112239.25361.luke-jr@utopios.org> <1097531267.30232.42.camel@helen.science.oregonstate.edu> In-Reply-To: <1097531267.30232.42.camel@helen.science.oregonstate.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1165879.vdHp7Q1UEn"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200410121101.39645.trapni@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] xorg-x11-6.8.0-r1 ready to go stable on all archs X-Archives-Salt: ed4b54db-f27a-4d57-997f-2bcc6b447ebf X-Archives-Hash: 6e497bd2b7596ed37cadcfc6ec66abc2 --nextPart1165879.vdHp7Q1UEn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 11 October 2004 11:47 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 15:39, Luke-Jr wrote: > > On Monday 11 October 2004 9:27 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 15:21, Luke-Jr wrote: > > > > Why isn't anyone getting 6.8.1 in the Portage tree? Seeing as how it > > > > is a security/bugfix release, I would expect 6.8.0 to remain unstab= le > > > > (or even masked) and 6.8.1 to be marked stable. > > > > > > Try reading the ChangeLog (grep -i security) before talking. > > > > So you are implying that 6.8.0-r1 is the same as 6.8.1 or something els= e? > > I see info in the ChangeLog suggesting it might have the security fixes > > merged, but according to Kito, there are PPC/OSX bugfixes w/ the DRI ATi > > > > drivers also: > > > not sure if 6.8.1 will fix the bugs with the binary ATI drivers on ppc > > > linux, but it has fixed the ATI bugs on my ppc darwin system FWIW. > > > > Are *those* fixes also present? ChangeLog doesn't suggest either way on > > non-security bugfixes. > > kito is confused, and I'm not sure where he/she got that idea. Don't > believe someone without any proof. There is absolutely nothing new in > 6.8.1 over 6.8.0 other than the security patch. Go to www.x.org for > yourself and click on Latest Release -- look at the patch. so why not giving it a proper release number? 6.8.1? as it technically equals (+patches) to the upstream 6.8.1 release? regards, Christian Parpart. =2D-=20 Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt 11:00:00 up 48 days, 22:39, 1 user, load average: 0.18, 0.19, 0.13 --nextPart1165879.vdHp7Q1UEn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.9.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBa51zPpa2GmDVhK0RApzDAJ9Y6yKT+trDBQXzOW/z3od0bfGElQCgiE4X +soKMbZo9Po3c7Tz8upT2zQ= =3pap -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1165879.vdHp7Q1UEn--