Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:57:35
Message-Id: 21678.50437.476560.356717@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations by Michael Orlitzky
1 >>>>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
2
3 > I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their
4 > own packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off
5 > of the arch teams.
6
7 > Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down
8 > anywhere?
9
10 Sure it is. :) For amd64 it is documented in an e-mail to gentoo-core
11 and a discussion in #gentoo-dev from 2007. I include both below.
12 (kingtaco was the amd64 team lead at the time.)
13
14 x86 has similar rules:
15 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/89711
16
17 Ulrich
18
19
20 | Message-ID: <473A496C.4020405@g.o>
21 | From: Mike Doty <kingtaco@g.o>
22 | To: Gentoo Core <gentoo-core@l.g.o>
23 | CC: amd64@g.o
24 | Subject: [gentoo-core] AMD64 keywords
25 | Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:03:40 -0800
26 |
27 | All-
28 |
29 | Due to my failure to keep the amd64 team on track, I must now ask for your
30 | help. We have 101 keywording bugs and 16 Security bugs, found at [1] and [2].
31 | It is simply too much work for me to do without holding up the release even more.
32 |
33 | If you are the maintainer of a package that currently has open bugs for amd64
34 | stabilization and own amd64 hardware, please do your own testing and keyword
35 | your packages.
36 |
37 | I apologize for every late bug due to the amd64 team slacking off.
38 |
39 | Mike Doty
40 |
41 | [1] - http://tinyurl.com/2uanmp
42 | [2] - http://tinyurl.com/3e2z56
43 | --
44 | gentoo-core@g.o mailing list
45
46 <ulm> !herd amd64
47 <jeeves> ulm: (amd64) angelos, beandog, cardoe, chutzpah, cryos, dang, diox,
48 dmwaters, hparker, kingtaco, kugelfang, malc, metalgod, philantrop,
49 rbu, sekretarz, tester, tomk, trapni, voxus, welp, wolf31o2
50 <ulm> ^^ping
51 <kingtaco|work> yes?
52 <ulm> kingtaco|work: I'm about to file a stablereq bug for about 70 packages
53 in app-emacs
54 <kingtaco|work> gah
55 <ulm> kingtaco|work: just wanted to ask how we should handle it
56 <kingtaco|work> well
57 <kingtaco|work> do you run stable amd64?
58 <ulm> kingtaco|work: not regularly, but opfer and me have machines available
59 <ulm> kingtaco|work: in principle this stuff should be arch-independent anyway
60 <kingtaco|work> ulm, for something like this, there are 2 paths. you can file
61 the bugs & tracker like usual or, if you have a stable amd64
62 root using portage, I would allow you to keyword
63 <kingtaco|work> I assume you're trying to make the snapshot?
64 <ulm> kingtaco|work: at least for some of the packages it would be nice
65 <ulm> it's mostly a matter to synchronise amd64 with x86
66 <kingtaco|work> ulm, they would probably be low on the priority list of stuff
67 to stabalize, so it sounds like it would be better to have the
68 emacs herd do the keywording
69 <ulm> kingtaco|work: the emacs team would prefer this, too ;)
70 <ulm> kingtaco|work: but i'm going to open a bug for it anyway
71 <kingtaco|work> ulm, ok, our requirements are a stable root and portage as the
72 pkg manager
73 <kingtaco|work> and yes, a bug so we all know what's going on is good
74 <phreak``> kingtaco|work: damn, I thought you accepted one of the alternatives
75 * phreak`` runs
76 <phreak``> better fast I take it
77 <phreak``> :P
78 <hparker> it's not like anyone uses emacs
79 * hparker runs
80 <kingtaco|work> phreak``, nope. I don't care if other devs use is for
81 whatever, but for amd64 our package manager is portage
82 <phreak``> hparker: if taco ain't nobody ;)
83 <hparker> phreak``: I know ;)
84 <kingtaco|work> and yes, I'm an emacs wh0re
85 <phreak``> kingtaco|work: just messing with you :-)
86 <ulm> kingtaco|work: in addition we have some 10 packages (in app-emacs, too)
87 to be keyworded ~amd64. Same procedure for them, I assume?
88 <kingtaco|work> ulm, jup
89 <kingtaco|work> ulm, so long as it's not a system dep, I'm more than happy to
90 let herds do the keywording