Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:21:11
Message-Id: 20050916181819.GA17982@nightcrawler
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting by Martin Schlemmer
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