From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16202 invoked by uid 1002); 1 Aug 2003 18:31:08 -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 25139 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2003 18:31:07 -0000 Message-ID: <3F2AB1EF.9000002@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:31:11 -0400 From: Kumba Reply-To: kumba@gentoo.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20030801175719.GA19260@kc5eiv.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20030801175719.GA19260@kc5eiv.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] getting sus-2.0.1 marked stable X-Archives-Salt: 5d56ac2f-c338-4079-9f0c-13b97c012684 X-Archives-Hash: 05cf200d71f7c46c2b61a3dba48fee48 William Hubbs wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm not sure if this question should go here or to gentoo-user, so if it should go there let me know and I'll refer it there. > > I submitted an ebuild for sus-2.0.1, a program similar to sudo, a few weeks ago. It was added to the tree and marked testing. I have been using it and had not problems with it. > > What is the procedure for getting it marked stable? > > Thanks a lot, > > William Usually you file another bug in that case. While not technically a "bug" bug, it still lets us keep track of those kind of needed updates. --Kumba -- "Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere." --Elrond -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list