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. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
