| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Dne 28.3.2010 09:39, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:47:27 +0200 |
| 6 |
> Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> No, seriously - given the fact that some of my packages were even |
| 8 |
>> stabilized without contacting me (app-misc/hal-cups-utils, |
| 9 |
>> app-admin/system-config- printer-common) - I think it should be: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Well you'd marked them "~arch", right? That means they're candidates to |
| 12 |
> go stable. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
Yes, but last time i checked we have consensus that archies should wait |
| 15 |
onto maintainer to request the stabling. |
| 16 |
>> * solely up to the package maintainers to stabilize application on |
| 17 |
>> arches they're using or on any arch if package is arch-agnostic |
| 18 |
>> (optionally, but preferably with some peer review from other project |
| 19 |
>> members or arch team members). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> There are no arch agnostic packages. |
| 22 |
I can find some, for example kde-l10n O:P But you are right. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
>> It's really freaking silly to wait months for stabilization of some |
| 25 |
>> random php/perl library that's known to work. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> How do you know it works if you don't test on the arch in question? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Basically you are saying that NONE tested that package on the arch until |
| 31 |
the stablerequest. That's quite wrong and it should mean that the arch |
| 32 |
should be ~ only, since they are stabling packages that they first |
| 33 |
tested the day they stable them. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Tomas |
| 36 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) |
| 38 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkuvKa0ACgkQHB6c3gNBRYdaWACdGP3EvuvL3+GVXI8GBsU3fHqj |
| 41 |
Kq8AoJMyVDS8P0vCXfwJuGIIEQHWPgUL |
| 42 |
=CO3D |
| 43 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives