| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>>I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their |
| 10 |
>>>own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. |
| 11 |
>>>Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform, |
| 12 |
>>>when is there ever a need for arch maintainers to decide that they know |
| 13 |
>>>better than package maintainers? |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>I assume you're talking of the case where arch team and maintainer's arch are |
| 17 |
>>the same. I think normally package maintainers can decide better whether their |
| 18 |
>>package should go stable on their arch than an arch team, as they get all the |
| 19 |
>>bugs for it. On the other hand, we can't define a "maintainer arch" in many |
| 20 |
>>cases, so either we leave the authority to the arch team or we'll just have an |
| 21 |
>>x86 arch team without the expected effects. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>I still think that the concept of a "maintainer arch" is completely |
| 26 |
>broken anyway. I like the idea of adding something like a "maint" |
| 27 |
>KEYWORD, or something similar to mark that the ebuild is considered |
| 28 |
>"stable" material by the maintainer. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
This keyword would be independent of any arch right? |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives