| 1 |
Hi Grant, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 4 |
> I'm still thinking about the concept of a "maint" option. This |
| 5 |
> question I can answer, however. It's not unheard of for a package with |
| 6 |
> a lot of dependencies to be marked stable when one of the dependencies |
| 7 |
> has not yet been so marked. In that sort of tree-breaking case, the |
| 8 |
> arch teams actually do know better, since they maintain ``arch`` systems |
| 9 |
> (or chroots) for testing. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Yes, but if package maintainers aren't allowed to mark packages as |
| 12 |
stable on anything but the "maintainer arch" (unless they are also a |
| 13 |
member of an arch team), this problem shouldn't happen. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package |
| 16 |
stable is to mark it stable on a "real" arch. Creating the "maintainer" |
| 17 |
arch solves this very problem. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Best regards, |
| 20 |
Stu |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Stuart Herbert stuart@g.o |
| 23 |
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 24 |
http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/ |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu |
| 27 |
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C |
| 28 |
-- |
Archives