From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 399 invoked by uid 1002); 25 Apr 2003 16:59:37 -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 23968 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2003 16:59:37 -0000 Message-ID: <3EA9692C.4040109@brad-x.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:58:20 -0400 From: Brad Laue User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030422 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: danarmak@gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <1050997108.2986.28.camel@amd.vsen.dk> <1051016369.4102.46.camel@entropy> <200304221726.35741.danarmak@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200304221726.35741.danarmak@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds not getting in :( X-Archives-Salt: a6c2fdcc-ced9-440c-b7a8-c80e76771881 X-Archives-Hash: 73df59f30d502c878a32b153c1da4e6e Dan Armak wrote: > Just a quick note (without addressing your main point). ~arch is _not_ > "unstable". It is not supposed to be unstable in the literal meaning of the > word. It is 'testing', or 'works for me'. Developers can _not_ commit things, > or leave things, unmasked in ~x86 that have known issues, or that are > alpha-quality releases from upstream. (This doesn't apply directly to what > you were saying, I just don't like to see it called unstable...) Okay, it seems to me that squid 2.5 and apache 2.0 don't belong in the ~x86 keyword then; I had considered this okay under the mistaken impression that this was an 'unstable' rather than a testing branch. Apache and squid's devel versions should be slotted, masked or placed in their own ebuilds, by the sounds of what you're saying. Agreed? Brad -- // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- // -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list