| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs (jstubbs@g.o) wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>>On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>>>If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of |
| 12 |
>>>>package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more |
| 13 |
>>>>testing", not "might work". |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>>It's a bit of both. When you put a package into ~arch, it's in |
| 16 |
>>>"testing", so that says it needs further "testing" since there still |
| 17 |
>>>could be a not yet discovered bug, right? |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>>Testing of the ebuild rather than of the package, though. This is the |
| 20 |
>>point where people sometimes get confused. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> That'd be me then :) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> So we're talking about correctness of ebuilds (correct dependencies, |
| 26 |
> use flag logic etc) and not whether the package actually works in depth. |
| 27 |
> The latter is what caused me to suggest drawing together a large team of |
| 28 |
> user-testers managed by arch-team devs. Correctness of ebuilds takes |
| 29 |
> us back to a dev role and the ebuild quiz, since it's necessary to |
| 30 |
> understand ebuilds to criticise them. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
After a rather heated discussion a while back, I came up with this |
| 34 |
definition: |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
- -arch :: the end-user software is/might be flakey |
| 37 |
~arch :: the ebuild is/might be flakey but the software is good |
| 38 |
arch :: its all good :) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Nathan |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 43 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
iD8DBQFDHGCN2QTTR4CNEQARAiVdAJ9wVLt5CPyW//qxmuSC3GlZSOaI+QCeLqEl |
| 46 |
78TX1Xtvbx7E4lBEdwnxMus= |
| 47 |
=T6ZT |
| 48 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives