| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:59:17PM -0600, Jory A. Pratt wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of |
| 4 |
> > what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a |
| 5 |
> > package stable. The only information I've been able to find states that they |
| 6 |
> > could cause a performance hit, but this doesn't seem to warrant banning them |
| 7 |
> > completely in my eyes. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Getting a clear cut policy on exactly what issues should hold a package back |
| 10 |
> > from being marked stable is what I'm looking for. Issues like textrels, |
| 11 |
> > executable stacks, etc is what I'm looking for to be defined and explained why |
| 12 |
> > we are to always avoid them. This should be added to existing documentation |
| 13 |
> > policy so it is somewhere for new devs to know about, and existing devs to |
| 14 |
> > have for a reference. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Only problem I see with this is binary packages. We can not control |
| 17 |
> upstream binaries as everyone is aware of. So when does it become safe |
| 18 |
> to override stable packages that have texrel's and executable stacks? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
no idea what you mean by "override", but here's a crazy idea ... ask |
| 21 |
upstream to fix the issues. for example, we just reported executable |
| 22 |
stacks with the ut2004 game and Ryan of epicgames was so kind as to |
| 23 |
fix it up for us. some upstream peeps dont even know about these sort |
| 24 |
of things until you point them out. |
| 25 |
-mike |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives