| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 17:22 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:39:44PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package |
| 4 |
> > stable is to mark it stable on a "real" arch. Creating the "maintainer" |
| 5 |
> > arch solves this very problem. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Yes, but please don't call it the "maintainer" arch. This will confuse our |
| 8 |
> users and it'll be quite difficult to document. I would rather vote for a |
| 9 |
> MAINTENANCE keyword, like the following example: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> MAINTENANCE="~x86" # Maintainer uses x86, package not deemed stable |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This provides two (wanted) inputs: stability and maintenance architecture. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me. Like |
| 16 |
I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea of *any* architecture |
| 17 |
being my "primary" one just doesn't really fit. There's also the simple |
| 18 |
fact that it doesn't matter *at all* what the maintainer runs it on, |
| 19 |
only whether or not (s)he considers it stable. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 23 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 24 |
Games - Developer |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives