1 |
On Fri, 2005-12-08 at 13:53 +0900, Chris White wrote: |
2 |
> I really do agree with not only this, but the need for stable marking |
3 |
> as well. Gentoo is very bleeding edge at this point, and I feel that |
4 |
> stable packages are somewhat lacking. However, the problems I see is |
5 |
> what is considered "Let the herd handle it" and what is considered |
6 |
> "sure why not". The script output should help, I'm just afraid that |
7 |
> if a person marks a package that the maintainer was planning on |
8 |
> working at, things could go wrong. I'm open to ideas on such a team, |
9 |
> but I'm not sure how to workout the major issues at this point. |
10 |
|
11 |
I know this has been discussed before without coming to a conclusion. |
12 |
But we need a wait for package maintainers to notify their intent. Maybe |
13 |
adding a "maint" keyword that maintainers would add went they mark their |
14 |
package stable. Especially since there seem more and more maintainers |
15 |
whose primary arch is not x86.. or worse, who use more than one arch. |
16 |
The concept of maintainer arch does not seem very adequate anymore. |
17 |
Maybe we need to complete this with -maint and ~maint.. Those would |
18 |
serve as guidance to arch teams. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Olivier CrĂȘte |
23 |
tester@g.o |
24 |
Gentoo Developer |
25 |
x86 Security Liaison |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |