From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5042 invoked by uid 1002); 25 Apr 2003 17:30:48 -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 7536 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2003 17:30:20 -0000 Message-ID: <3EA97106.10807@foser.dyn.warande.net> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:50 +0200 From: foser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030319 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <1050997108.2986.28.camel@amd.vsen.dk> <1051016369.4102.46.camel@entropy> <200304221726.35741.danarmak@gentoo.org> <3EA9692C.4040109@brad-x.com> In-Reply-To: <3EA9692C.4040109@brad-x.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.73.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds not getting in :( X-Archives-Salt: 1527fa13-691d-4cfc-b725-f6dd397a9240 X-Archives-Hash: 94a50e2acae05287791d5a8c8a6bad8c Brad Laue wrote: > > 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? Apache-2.* is slotted and afaik stable enough to be used, so it doesn't need to be masked (it can be ~ ofcourse). Squid 2.5 is considered the current stable version. By the sound of what Dan is saying, they are correct in the tree. - foser -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list