Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable

["Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Cummings wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> So, only this reply.
> 
>> May I conclude that nobody objects to the above?
> 
>> Ulrich
> 
> Wearing only my perl team hat, it would seem to lowly me that if a
> virtual points to packages foo and bar, and both foo and bar were tested
> and marked stable by the arch's previously, that its silly to then wait
> for them to mark the virtual stable as well, since at least in my
> perception the only function of that virtual is to say use one of these
> packages - which have already been marked stable.
> 
> /me hopes some arch brains step in, like weeve in particular, who is
> usually far more eloquent at defending an arch's position
> 

Michael,

for a virtual pointing to packages foo and bar, only one of them needs
to be stable before the virtual can be marked as stable, right?
So your above comment should read "if a virtual points to packages foo
and bar, and [either foo or bar was] tested and marked stable by the
arch's previously, that its silly to then wait for them to mark the
virtual stable as well", right?

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Proctors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGXs9kcAWygvVEyAIRAnoUAJ4iQc4qhyn8Yehuvs2w5AHknU2crgCfVvCx
PWibZvOya/nyGDZDi72rwLs=
=YAH2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list