From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23E601382C5 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:40:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BFB94E0C52; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx.cims.nyu.edu (MX.CIMS.NYU.EDU [128.122.49.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60B8FE0C08 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.cs.nyu.edu (smtp.cs.nyu.edu [128.122.49.97]) by mx.cims.nyu.edu (8.15.1+Sun/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id w1JJe6DR004433 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from E7450.localdomain (ool-18be5603.dyn.optonline.net [24.190.86.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.cs.nyu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w1JJe59A003769 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:40:06 -0500 Received: by E7450.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 31FC04573E; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:40:05 -0500 (EST) From: allan gottlieb To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] webkit-gtk build failure and masking confusion References: <87371zt86n.fsf@nyu.edu> <4876333.DpMW1yWErG@dell_xps> <87371y71do.fsf@nyu.edu> <3698f8fd-6b1a-c2ff-d204-1f41787b6027@sys-concept.com> <20180219185957.7226eaa6@digimed.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:40:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180219185957.7226eaa6@digimed.co.uk> (Neil Bothwick's message of "Mon, 19 Feb 2018 18:59:57 +0000") Message-ID: <87606svkdm.fsf@nyu.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (mx.cims.nyu.edu [128.122.49.99]); Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:40:07 -0500 (EST) for IP:'128.122.49.97' DOMAIN:'smtp.cs.nyu.edu' HELO:'smtp.cs.nyu.edu' FROM:'gottlieb@nyu.edu' RCPT:'' X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (mx.cims.nyu.edu [128.122.49.99]); Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:40:07 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.80 on 128.122.49.99 X-Archives-Salt: 0f92feb5-1b46-4236-a911-690f1436b1bb X-Archives-Hash: 320f6891424c069f1f8f3d18fbb57065 On Mon, Feb 19 2018, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:05:37 -0700, thelma@sys-concept.com wrote: > >> It is a good point. Why Gentoo developers marked or allow to mark >> gnucash-2.7 branch stable in portage when the developers >> https://www.gnucash.org/download.phtml did not mark it STABLE > > The key phrase there is "stable in portage". Not whether it is suitable > or not for any particular use. If the ebuild is considered stable, it > should be marked as such. Those interested in the status of gnucash-2.7 should follow bug 647112. In particular if there is a reply to comment 6. allan