Petteri Räty wrote: > Daniel Drake kirjoitti: >> Petteri Räty wrote: >>> Why would the kernel have to go stable before the usual month dictated >>> by policy? Yes there are usually security bugs but you did not mention >>> that as a reason in your post. >> At last check this was a recommendation, not a policy, plus nobody >> objected timeframe-wise before. > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0040.html > > "The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first. > Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a > guideline. For critical packages, a much longer duration is expected. > For small packages which have only minor changes between versions, a > shorter period is sometimes appropriate." > > I would consider the kernel a critical package. Sure I could have worded > my original mail a little better. > 'is expected'.
Portage is also a critical package and I doubt it's ever spent 30 days in ~arch. As always, maintainer knows best (and you can obviously blame dsd if all hell breaks loose :)) -Alec -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
