| 1 |
Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebuilds |
| 4 |
>> keyworded. That's why they _weren't_ keyworded. That's why there was no bug |
| 5 |
>> filed, saying "hey we dropped these keywords" because they _did not want_ you to |
| 6 |
>> add them back yet. When the ebuilds were of sufficient quality that they could |
| 7 |
>> be tested, then a bug is filed, the ebuilds are tested, and then re-keyworded. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Right, but you did not make your want known, so how is Jer to know? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I don't really want to get into the specifics of this situation but |
| 13 |
wanted to raise a question of policy. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
My understanding is that arch teams shouldn't keyword anything without |
| 16 |
the OK of the maintainer - usually in the form of a STABLEREQ bug. When |
| 17 |
I get stable requests from users I don't act on them until I hear from |
| 18 |
the maintainer for this reason. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I know that at one point there was discussion of having a ~maint/maint |
| 21 |
keywords that would be used just to indicate the intent of the |
| 22 |
maintainer for each package. Then all the usual keyword-comparison |
| 23 |
tools could be used to detect packages that are ready for keywording. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I would be pretty annoyed as a maintainer if I started getting a deluge |
| 26 |
of bug reports and complaints from end users who didn't intend to run |
| 27 |
broken software if somebody unmasked or keyworded something that I |
| 28 |
didn't intend anybody to be using aside from a few brave souls willing |
| 29 |
to risk everything to try out some new software. |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives