Re: [gentoo-dev] profile shift for arm/s390/sh from stable to dev

[Peter Alfredsen]

On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
  ive made this shift in profiles.desc:
  sed -ir '/^(arm|s390|sh)/s:stable:dev:' profiles.desc
  if/when we get dedicated arch maintainers, they can think about
  shifting back

 for the confused ... you should still be adding these arches for
 stable requests and you should not be dropping their keywords
 -mike

Just for the extra dense among us, does this mean that when a security 
bug such as 216850[1] gets closed with no response from those arches, 
that in such cases we are allowed punt the affected ebuild, even though 
it will break your stable?

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/216850

-- 
/PA


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

[gentoo-dev] profile shift for arm/s390/sh from stable to dev

[Mike Frysinger]

ive made this shift in profiles.desc:
sed -ir '/^(arm|s390|sh)/s:stable:dev:' profiles.desc
if/when we get dedicated arch maintainers, they can think about shifting back
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] profile shift for arm/s390/sh from stable to dev

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 ive made this shift in profiles.desc:
 sed -ir '/^(arm|s390|sh)/s:stable:dev:' profiles.desc
 if/when we get dedicated arch maintainers, they can think about shifting
 back

for the confused ... you should still be adding these arches for stable 
requests and you should not be dropping their keywords
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.