Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

[Simon Stelling]

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their
> own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package.
> Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform,
> when is there ever a need for arch maintainers to decide that they know
> better than package maintainers?

I assume you're talking of the case where arch team and maintainer's arch are 
the same. I think normally package maintainers can decide better whether their 
package should go stable on their arch than an arch team, as they get all the 
bugs for it. On the other hand, we can't define a "maintainer arch" in many 
cases, so either we leave the authority to the arch team or we'll just have an 
x86 arch team without the expected effects.

> If this isn't confined - if arch maintainers are allowed to override
> package maintainers wherever they want to - then arch teams need to take
> on the support burden.  Fair's fair - if it's the arch team creating the
> support, it's only fair that they support users in these cases.  It's
> completely unfair - and unrealistic - to expect a package maintainer to
> support a package he/she thinks isn't fit to be stable on an arch that
> he/she probably doesn't use anyway.  In such a conflict of egos, the
> real losers remain our users.

That'd mean that you normally have assigned to the maintainer and x86@ in CC or 
vice versa, right? For that you need a huuuge x86 arch team...

> It's just a word.  Provided the concept is agreed on, the word isn't the
> most important thing in the world.

I'd prefer machamalahalabad ;)

Regards,

-- 
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@g.o
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list