| 1 |
On Thursday 26 August 2004 17:33, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:30:11 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> |
| 3 |
> *sigh* x86 having broken stable gnome for two weeks and not realising |
| 4 |
> it (whilst other archs who went ahead of x86 had it working) just goes |
| 5 |
> to show that this is not always the case. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Oh, and you're assuming that all your packages are entirely arch |
| 8 |
> neutral. This is also not always the case. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Oh, please don't do the arch ride. It's all about communication and tools to |
| 11 |
optimize it. We had the idea to have a stable flag or to precede the |
| 12 |
package_maintainer_arch_keyword (in short: pmac ;) by a sign, to let single |
| 13 |
archs go ahead without loosing the necessary information for other archs, but |
| 14 |
the discussion fell asleep. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If you know about a problem with gnome+x86, then put them on fire. Same for |
| 17 |
kde of course, but I yell for helping hands in advance. And please tell my: |
| 18 |
How and why should a package maintainer should keep watch over the arch |
| 19 |
herds!? Everything else will cause broken stable ebuilds every now and then. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Carsten |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives