Re: [gentoo-dev] summary: proposed solutions to arches/stable problem

[Jason Stubbs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 24 June 2004 00:07, foser wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 22:37 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > I think that before this all, we first and all need to get absolutely
> > > clear what we want to do with these keywords. As a package maintainer I
> > > know that it can sometimes be displeasing when other archs mark your
> > > package as stable. I do however not think that we need to spend that
> > > much effort on the problem.
> > >
> > > If we want to spend the effort we however should first make clear the
> > > purpose, not just make clear what the arch maintainer's keyword is
> > > without making it clear what is the purpose of this knowledge.
> >
> > That's probably the most rational thing I've heard in this entire debate
> > - not that it has all been irrational...
>
> I found it to be most effortless comment so far, because all the reasons
> are laid out perfectly fine so far in this thread. This is basicly just
> QA, no more reasons needed than that. The implementation policy wise has
> also been dealt with, i have no clue whatsoever he wants explained that
> hasn't been most thoroughly scrutinized already.

My understanding is that one camp believes a stable keyword means that the 
package is stable overall but may have arch-specific issues. The other camp 
believes that a stable keyword has no implications beyond the architecture 
that is marked stable.

There needs to be agreement on the meaning of a stable keyword before a 
procedure that deals with them can be agreed upon...

Regards,
Jason Stubbs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBQNoNXloikN4/5jfsAQIpbAP/SZwqk5wgWYg8TT/k+oY4v5OW7pBOEltO
RfnPogXrx88B0LXx/XT6ncNBsSKEg3uaqKu0A2W3n2PwZAPKSAylrpNS5rF2YiHm
O6SKcADWHc/RC6Y5QaQMnJDqjgHZrTMW3YyV9lDSo76H3mNiO+bgM2dson3nvWDW
WlWajun9Mw0=
=//lk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list