Some of the packages that I use are ~arch keyworded right now and I was
wanting to ask some questions about when to file stabilization requests and
about how much information needs to be provided when filling them.
1) How long do you recommend using a package before filing a stabilization
On Monday 08 December 2008 06:00:10 pm Jean-Marc Hengen wrote:
> This mail is about EAPI usage in the portage tree. Let me describe it,
> with what happened today: I'm running a mostly stable system (91 of 1255
> installed packages are unstable), but I test here and there some
> packages. On of th
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 12:13:40 pm Petteri Räty wrote:
> Robert R. Russell wrote:
> > My personal opinion on this matter is pick one of the following:
> > 1) perform the bugfix without a version bump and remain at the current
> > EAPI version
> > 2) perform the
On Monday 15 December 2008 05:47:47 pm Duncan wrote:
> Paul Varner posted
> 1229371818.21630.7.ca...@txslpc1d36.wkst.vzwnet.com, excerpted below, on
>
> Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:10:17 -0600:
> > # Paul Varner (14 Dec 2008) # Dead upstream,
> > masked for removal in ~30 to 60 days. app-portage/udept
>
On Monday 22 December 2008 11:40:32 pm Branko Badrljica wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
> > Branko Badrljica posted
> > 494f1518.2020...@avtomatika.com, excerpted below, on Mon, 22 Dec 2008
> >
> > 05:18:32 +0100:
> >> Maybe I should have filed this as a bug, but don't have a clue to which
> >> package sh
On Saturday 21 March 2009 19:03:45 AllenJB wrote:
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you
> > count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting
> > quite confusing.
> > To make our lives easier I would s
On Friday 15 May 2009 05:44:47 Richard Freeman wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
> >
> > Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of
> >> the ebuild starting with EAPI=
> >
> > Uh, so horribly utterly and obviou
On Saturday 16 May 2009 20:17:14 Nick Fortino wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:39:40 -0700
> >
> > Nick Fortino wrote:
> >> Given the above, it should be clear that any argument which states
> >> some future improvement to the ebuild format will be impossible based
> >>
