| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-07-06 at 17:44 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 2 |
> Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT] |
| 3 |
> > I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of |
| 4 |
> > maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the |
| 5 |
> > policy of if one arch stabilises then we can assume that is the |
| 6 |
> > maintainer arch. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Whoa, careful there. It's not a policy and it's not even |
| 9 |
> a recommendation. I believe there are arch teams that will |
| 10 |
> automatically stable a package after it has been ~arch for a period of |
| 11 |
> time. They will break your assumption. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This would be very evil. Are you sure its not a policy? Because it |
| 14 |
should be and it has been discussed before. Arch teams should NOT get |
| 15 |
ahead of the maintainer without his permission... or if they really |
| 16 |
really know what they are doing. Maintainers normally know their |
| 17 |
package/ebuilds and often have very good reasons to keep a package ~arch |
| 18 |
for more than 30 days.. This is almost as evil as keywording on |
| 19 |
architectures on which you can't test.. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Olivier Crête |
| 23 |
tester@g.o |
| 24 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 25 |
x86 Security Liaison |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives