| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:30:11 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | On Thursday 26 August 2004 17:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > Personally I prefer my original wording: |
| 6 |
> | > > Arch teams: when moving from ~arch to arch on an actively |
| 7 |
> | > > maintained package where you're going ahead of the maintainer's |
| 8 |
> | > > arch, it's best to consult first. You don't necessarily have to |
| 9 |
> | > > follow the maintainer's advice, but at least listen to what they |
| 10 |
> | > > have to say. |
| 11 |
> | |
| 12 |
> | The problem is still the same: Other arch maintainers can't know, |
| 13 |
> | which arch is the package maintainers arch. I would always deny or |
| 14 |
> | mask it stable on my arch as well, if I had no objections. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> *sigh* x86 having broken stable gnome for two weeks and not realising |
| 17 |
> it (whilst other archs who went ahead of x86 had it working) just goes |
| 18 |
> to show that this is not always the case. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
i refrained from doing the i-told-you-so when that happened, but i just |
| 21 |
cant help it now. i told you so! (though it's still in really really |
| 22 |
really bad taste) |
| 23 |
i just found it ironic that it was someone from the gnome team who was |
| 24 |
arguing for never marking packages stable last the maintainer's arch, |
| 25 |
and gnome was broken on it's maintainer's arch for so long. for amd64, |
| 26 |
nobody complained about epiphany being broken. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
...and this example is one of the mostly arch generic ones where it |
| 29 |
would usually not make sense to go too far ahead of the maintainer on a |
| 30 |
regular basis. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Travis Tilley <lv@g.o> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives