| 1 |
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:54:02 +0100 |
| 2 |
Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Maybe the answer is to have separate trees for arches and general |
| 5 |
> packages then? That would be one solution. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> (Although not one that I'd personally prefer. I'd rather the package |
| 8 |
> maintainers learned to work within the rules instead.) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I agree, I'd rather keep things as they are (and supposed to be) rather |
| 11 |
than do weird things like have arch specific trees. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
However, package maintainers (particularly in the scripting herds) need |
| 14 |
to be disabused of the notion of making assumptions about "my language |
| 15 |
is portable so I can mark this stable". While the script itself may be |
| 16 |
"portable", there may be core elements of said scripting language that |
| 17 |
don't work quite right and aren't noticed until some particular script |
| 18 |
package triggers it. This includes shells as well as regular |
| 19 |
programming languages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Cheers, |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Jason Wever |
| 24 |
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead |
Archives