1 |
(Probably off topic? I think Richard said something he didn't intend.) |
2 |
|
3 |
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 11:24 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> Alec Warner wrote: |
5 |
> > On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> >> You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebuilds |
7 |
> >> keyworded. That's why they _weren't_ keyworded. That's why there was no bug |
8 |
> >> filed, saying "hey we dropped these keywords" because they _did not want_ you to |
9 |
> >> add them back yet. When the ebuilds were of sufficient quality that they could |
10 |
> >> be tested, then a bug is filed, the ebuilds are tested, and then re-keyworded. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Right, but you did not make your want known, so how is Jer to know? |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I don't really want to get into the specifics of this situation but |
16 |
> wanted to raise a question of policy. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> My understanding is that arch teams shouldn't keyword anything without |
19 |
> the OK of the maintainer - usually in the form of a STABLEREQ bug. When |
20 |
> I get stable requests from users I don't act on them until I hear from |
21 |
> the maintainer for this reason. |
22 |
> |
23 |
|
24 |
Um, not really --- this is too broad. Some packages are not keyworded |
25 |
because no one has ever tried them. We occasionally get keyword |
26 |
requests of the form "Please add ~sparc keyword to .... because I've |
27 |
been using it and it works fine" in response to which we do add the |
28 |
keyword if it does work. No maintainer action involved, because the |
29 |
maintainer apparently doesn't know if the package works on sparc or not |
30 |
anyway. A STABLEREQ is a different matter, masked packages are a |
31 |
different matter, but not just keywording. |
32 |
|
33 |
--- snip --- |
34 |
|
35 |
Regards, |
36 |
Ferris |
37 |
-- |
38 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
39 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |