| 1 |
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 22:11 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:48:53 +0200 foser <foser@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | > For those of you who missed it the first three times, *the current |
| 4 |
> | > system works*. |
| 5 |
> | |
| 6 |
> | This is just not true, i've seen it break things & this will happen |
| 7 |
> | more and more in the future. I've posted a recent example on -dev |
| 8 |
> | already, so I don't even know why you can still knowingly make this |
| 9 |
> | false statement. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> And as I recall, the example you provided was invalid, since a) the |
| 12 |
> packages in question weren't stable on mips anyway, and b) it fixed a |
| 13 |
> lot more than it broke. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Well, you recall wrong : |
| 16 |
a) obviously you don't know the situation, because this is not true |
| 17 |
b) this is not true either |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The example is valid. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I'd also like to point out that we have a lot of |
| 22 |
> happy users running our stable trees, and that the *only* complaint |
| 23 |
> we've had regarding our keywording policies for sparc and mips came from |
| 24 |
> a developer who has absolutely nothing to do with the archs in question. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If it breaks, the maintainer gets the bugs, not the arch, because the |
| 27 |
break wouldn't be arch specfic, but a general problem. That's the whole |
| 28 |
point. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> So, from the perspective of the people who actually use our trees, yes, |
| 31 |
> the system works. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Read above, this is not a valid assumption. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Actually, because we paid attention to it, it has not lead to any |
| 36 |
serious treaths to stable arches trees. So if we let go and you do for |
| 37 |
once suffer the consequences, this might still change, but I hope it |
| 38 |
won't have to come that. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
- foser |
Archives