| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 21:01, Ferris McCormick wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, foser wrote: |
| 6 |
> > You are not the package maintainer, you should not mark it stable before |
| 7 |
> > that happens. So your arch going stable has no wider significance. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Sure it does, unless the maintainer never makes mistakes. It's more |
| 10 |
> evidence that the package is good (consider the endian problems which |
| 11 |
> come up now and then. If maintainer is little-endian and sparc goes |
| 12 |
> stable, that suggests to other big-endian archs that there is probably |
| 13 |
> not an endian concern. Look at games, sys-cluster, and I think you'll |
| 14 |
> find examples where number of stable architectures matters.) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It has significance for an architecture, but not in general. The package |
| 17 |
maintainer stays in contact with upstream development and knows if e.g. there |
| 18 |
is a problem under a special condition and waits for a new upstream release. |
| 19 |
That's why foser says arch maintainers shall wait for package maintainers, |
| 20 |
unless there is a critical problem with the current stable version on that |
| 21 |
arch. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Carsten |
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iD8DBQFA2fCxVwbzmvGLSW8RAgOtAJ9rwa75UVp/vkAYMIbVfq48td7q+QCfVa9t |
| 29 |
8Q8A5A9xiVmQUxy/pj7Dn9o= |
| 30 |
=X7D+ |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives