| 1 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:23:35 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Friday 16 September 2005 22:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > That's not my idea. That's policy. I just happen to a) have actually |
| 5 |
| > read what policy says and b) agree with it. |
| 6 |
| |
| 7 |
| First: I know you're proposing this regularly, but please show me the |
| 8 |
| policy - I'm sure your interpretation doesn't match mine. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1 |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for |
| 13 |
> ebuilds. The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires testing. The use |
| 14 |
> of package.mask denotes that the application or library itself is |
| 15 |
> deemed unstable. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
| Second: a) and b) doesn't match what's going on with large parts of |
| 18 |
| the tree |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Good time for package maintainers to start following policy properly, |
| 21 |
eh? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 25 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 26 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives