1 |
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:14:08PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 19:42 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
3 |
> > On Friday 16 September 2005 00:20, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
> > > actually this is came up in the meeting as something we would like to see |
5 |
> > > spelled out explicitly ... either as a GLEP itself or as a policy update to |
6 |
> > > current stabilization practices |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > the GLEP was approved on the grounds that we need an x86 team and that it |
9 |
> > > needs to be treated as any other arch ... arch team interaction with |
10 |
> > > maintainers should be spelled out clearly rather than part of a single |
11 |
> > > sentence '... or make individual arrangements with the x86 arch team.' |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Ok, I do think that we will need a way for the maintainer to indicate that the |
14 |
> > package is stable. I'd be happy to leave stabilizing out of my hands, but I |
15 |
> > wouldn't want my packages to be stabilized before I deem it stable. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> |
18 |
> File a bug if the arches (or main ones at least) haven't picked it up |
19 |
> yet? Will make the problem of missing some or other keyword minimal |
20 |
> (especially for some obscure package not often used). |
21 |
I would prefer this route, personally. |
22 |
|
23 |
Jamming a maint keyword into the ebuild is kind of ugly from where I |
24 |
sit :) |
25 |
~harring |