| 1 |
[+gentoo-dev] |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I'm just going to jump randomly in here. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Also, moving this back to -dev as it is not a private matter. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The bread and butter of this is what: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
A. KDE team drops arch keywords for KDE 4, since KDE4 is new. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
B. Jer re-keywords KDE4 on HPPA but doesn't try installing the |
| 12 |
software to make sure it works. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
C. Jer misses keywords because the KDE team did not provide a distinct |
| 15 |
list of packages and Jer was relying on repoman to notify him when he |
| 16 |
broke the deptree for HPPA. Repoman has a bug/feature that caused it |
| 17 |
to behave in an unexpected manner. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So I think most people think A. is an acceptable practice. For all |
| 20 |
intents and purposes KDE4 is new software. Does anyone disagree with |
| 21 |
this? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I think C is both Jer's and the KDE teams fault. How difficult is it |
| 24 |
really to produce a distinct package list KDE team? You could always |
| 25 |
refuse to keyword without such a list. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I think B is the real argument here. Typically when commiting |
| 28 |
packages you are supposed to install them and at least (in the case of |
| 29 |
KDE) log into KDE and make sure it at least works. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Jer, did you do this? If not; do you understand why the other |
| 32 |
developers are upset? Really I think they just want you to test |
| 33 |
things you are keywording. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-Alec |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives