| 1 |
Jason Huebel said: |
| 2 |
> Ebuild maintainers are supposed to write stable /ebuilds/ for Gentoo. |
| 3 |
> Arch maintainers are supposed to make sure the /applications/ installed |
| 4 |
> by those ebuilds are stable during runtime. There's a clear line |
| 5 |
> between the two job functions. Yes, it is common for a dev to fill |
| 6 |
> both roles. But in the case of someone (like me) who is /only/ an arch |
| 7 |
> maintainer, who wins out when determining the stability of the |
| 8 |
> installed application? I don't think it's the ebuild maintainer, since |
| 9 |
> that individual may have no access to my arch. We're arch |
| 10 |
> maintainers-- that's our job. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It's not one or the other: it's both. Nobody needs to "win" the |
| 13 |
maintainership battle here. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Here's how I see it. PMs are responsible for the whole package, including |
| 16 |
arch-independent and arch-dependent aspects. Independently, PMs work to |
| 17 |
ensure the arch-independent parts are stable. Together with AMs, the PMs |
| 18 |
work to ensure the arch-dependent aspects are stable. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Until the day when AMs have equal amounts of time to spend on each package |
| 21 |
as PMs, I don't see this changing. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Donnie |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives