| 1 |
Last time there was a big file QA check of the tree, someone said that |
| 2 |
certain things (such as bootloaders) were exempt. As such, despite the |
| 3 |
fact that I don't quite understand why splash.xpm.gz is in the tree |
| 4 |
rather than on the mirrors, when I last committed a new grub I left it |
| 5 |
there in files/. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Will there be exemptions for certain circumstances (I'm sure there must |
| 8 |
be a reason for the above) or not? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 11 |
> On Wednesday 25 August 2004 02:56 am, Tavis Ormandy wrote: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>>Sorry for the late reply, but does this really need to be checked by |
| 14 |
>>repoman, shouldnt this kind of decision be left to the developers |
| 15 |
>>discretion? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> it should be but since it's obvious that policy is ignored (either because the |
| 19 |
> dev doesnt notice or they just dont care), we need something to help enforce |
| 20 |
> -mike |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> -- |
| 23 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives