| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 00:20, Jason Wever wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:49:47 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > I also would hesitate to auto-~arch fairly critical packages, such as X |
| 6 |
> > or anything in system. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> For larger || more troublesome || tool-chain type packages, we've |
| 9 |
> historically worked with the package maintainers in keywording new |
| 10 |
> versions to help with this. In cases like this that is |
| 11 |
> acceptable/agreeable. This might be a fine print item for that portion of |
| 12 |
> the handbook. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Personally, I would rather run into a package breaking in a revbump than |
| 15 |
> have it be missing keywords and not notified that it was behind. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm sorry, I took it as a given that the archs would be notified in this |
| 18 |
case. I guess I shouldn't have. =) |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 21 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives