1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On Saturday 19 June 2004 00:29, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> If an ebuild is missing significant things or conflicting with other |
7 |
> packages, it should be in package.mask. ~ isn't a dumping ground for |
8 |
> known broken ebuilds, it's an indication that the package is a candidate |
9 |
> for stable after testing. |
10 |
> |
11 |
As Donnie said: package.mask'ed ebuilds most likely result either in less bug |
12 |
reports or more users whining about broken stuff, because a lot of them would |
13 |
unmask nearly everything then. When becoming a dev I was told, that an ebuild |
14 |
can/should be marked stable thirty days after the last known bug is fixed. |
15 |
Does every arch team member adhere this rule and look at bugs.g., if there is |
16 |
an open bug report left and if the last ebuild change is from a month ago, |
17 |
before declaring an ebuild stable on xyz? |
18 |
|
19 |
- From an organizational point of view it would be better, if the arch teams |
20 |
would file a (P1) request via bug.g.o, giving the maintainer (herd/s) the |
21 |
possibility to comment it. On the other hand I don't think Gentoo has enough |
22 |
developers yet, to add another bit of overhead. :-/ |
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
Carsten |
26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
27 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
28 |
|
29 |
iD8DBQFA03p9VwbzmvGLSW8RAqTdAJwOsjWaahCw4Ebyw2SsZicHp/G75ACggj3g |
30 |
NsTqSghtEGxVogZueczNOP0= |
31 |
=EM/G |
32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |