1 |
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:23:33 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
| > Feedback please. I advocate this approach for 'minor' packages, i.e. |
4 |
| > nothing fundamental to the working of the system. It's more suitable |
5 |
| > for scripting language libraries and minor applications (e.g. |
6 |
| > obscure window managers). |
7 |
| |
8 |
| A more appropriate option would be to allow users to test packages |
9 |
| that have not been marked as broken on their arg and then have a |
10 |
| policy that if at least two users have reported a package as stable, |
11 |
| and an arch dev can compile it it will be marked testing, and stable |
12 |
| if it has no problems within a reasonable time period. |
13 |
|
14 |
This is basically how we do things for sparc already. For non-core |
15 |
packages with sane dependencies, if it is reported as working by a user |
16 |
(bugzilla or over irc) and it compiles then we'll usually keyword it up |
17 |
pretty quickly. This is how we handle a lot of the more obscure |
18 |
packages. "It works" reports are always welcomed :) |
19 |
|
20 |
-- |
21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
22 |
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org |
23 |
Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |