| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Saturday 19 June 2004 00:29, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> If an ebuild is missing significant things or conflicting with other |
| 7 |
> packages, it should be in package.mask. ~ isn't a dumping ground for |
| 8 |
> known broken ebuilds, it's an indication that the package is a candidate |
| 9 |
> for stable after testing. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
As Donnie said: package.mask'ed ebuilds most likely result either in less bug |
| 12 |
reports or more users whining about broken stuff, because a lot of them would |
| 13 |
unmask nearly everything then. When becoming a dev I was told, that an ebuild |
| 14 |
can/should be marked stable thirty days after the last known bug is fixed. |
| 15 |
Does every arch team member adhere this rule and look at bugs.g., if there is |
| 16 |
an open bug report left and if the last ebuild change is from a month ago, |
| 17 |
before declaring an ebuild stable on xyz? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
- From an organizational point of view it would be better, if the arch teams |
| 20 |
would file a (P1) request via bug.g.o, giving the maintainer (herd/s) the |
| 21 |
possibility to comment it. On the other hand I don't think Gentoo has enough |
| 22 |
developers yet, to add another bit of overhead. :-/ |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Carsten |
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iD8DBQFA03p9VwbzmvGLSW8RAqTdAJwOsjWaahCw4Ebyw2SsZicHp/G75ACggj3g |
| 30 |
NsTqSghtEGxVogZueczNOP0= |
| 31 |
=EM/G |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives