| 1 |
On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:26:19 +0100 |
| 4 |
> > "Wulf C. Krueger" <philantrop@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >> No, we didn't because the whole thing is p.masked for a reason. It, |
| 7 |
> >> KDE 4.0.1, is broken crap that should not yet be re-keyworded. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > OK then. and I am not going to cross-post this to -dev@, btw: why the |
| 10 |
> > hell did you decide to put broken crap in the tree? It should never have |
| 11 |
> > left your repository, it seems. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> It's package masked and unkeyworded, which is a big hint that it's under |
| 15 |
> development. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So Jer should just implicitly know not to keyword it? Why not make it |
| 18 |
explicit? That is all I am really asking for here. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> > If you still wonder why I started rekeywording for HPPA, then let this |
| 23 |
> > be the final answer. It was no fault of mine - I did it on purpose. No |
| 24 |
> > keywording error - I was going to finish all the dependencies if you |
| 25 |
> > hadn't asked me not to (because by then you were claiming KDE team |
| 26 |
> > "reserves" the "right" to drop keywords at will and without notifying |
| 27 |
> > arch teams, as opposed to current policy. The repoman bug / missing |
| 28 |
> > feature left a few stones unturned, sadly, but I was going to do all of |
| 29 |
> > KDE 4. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebuilds |
| 33 |
> keyworded. That's why they _weren't_ keyworded. That's why there was no bug |
| 34 |
> filed, saying "hey we dropped these keywords" because they _did not want_ you to |
| 35 |
> add them back yet. When the ebuilds were of sufficient quality that they could |
| 36 |
> be tested, then a bug is filed, the ebuilds are tested, and then re-keyworded. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Right, but you did not make your want known, so how is Jer to know? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Maintainers have every right to drop keywords if they think changes to their |
| 42 |
> package are drastic enough to require re-evaluation by an architecture team. |
| 43 |
> It's how we keep big fat calamity from befalling our users. Yes, they need to |
| 44 |
> inform the arch teams to re-add their keywords. No that request does not need |
| 45 |
> to come immediately if they're not ready for it. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> A simple rule to go by: Dropped keywords on package.masked packages are not |
| 48 |
> dropped keywords. If that package comes out of package.mask and still lacks |
| 49 |
> your keyword and no bug is filed, then yes, then you have a legitimate beef. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> This is simply the way things work from my point of view as a maintainer and a |
| 52 |
> arch dev for a oft keyword-dropped arch. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
RIght but if everyone is not following the same rules you |
| 55 |
get...well...this exact situation. The whole point of this discussion |
| 56 |
is not to assign blame, it is to figure out what we should change so |
| 57 |
this doesn't happen again as it obviously upset lots of folks. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-Alec |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> -- |
| 65 |
> fonts, gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 66 |
> mips, treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 67 |
> wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives