1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 19:53, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
5 |
> On Tuesday 22 June 2004 23:33, Aron Griffis wrote: |
6 |
> > At this point I've made a couple suggestions, and developers have |
7 |
> > voiced either support or objections, and raised some good arguments |
8 |
> > either way. I'm hoping this email will summarize the three suggested |
9 |
> > approaches, their pros and cons, and we can eventually converge on a |
10 |
> > single solution. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I think that before this all, we first and all need to get absolutely clear |
13 |
> what we want to do with these keywords. As a package maintainer I know that |
14 |
> it can sometimes be displeasing when other archs mark your package as |
15 |
> stable. I do however not think that we need to spend that much effort on |
16 |
> the problem. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> If we want to spend the effort we however should first make clear the |
19 |
> purpose, not just make clear what the arch maintainer's keyword is without |
20 |
> making it clear what is the purpose of this knowledge. |
21 |
|
22 |
That's probably the most rational thing I've heard in this entire debate - not |
23 |
that it has all been irrational... |
24 |
|
25 |
Regards, |
26 |
Jason Stubbs |
27 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
28 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
29 |
|
30 |
iQCVAwUBQNmHgVoikN4/5jfsAQL+egP/Yb98ac1FeztSFkEBEdmIqeQpOhwLNUql |
31 |
e0w7gabShaFvl3loCgHkmkl9B5/06CsLpONmTjqGSVDW4VHZvry/8TZyBCsJu4Sx |
32 |
aCglP0KMdYnGh7TainsyuM6DhB7t3x48fUUqubN9n6Ekx8AyhUQATYbGkYHcU6+W |
33 |
GoNzvTOHIKc= |
34 |
=62ch |
35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |