| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT] |
| 7 |
>> I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of |
| 8 |
>> maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the |
| 9 |
>> policy of if one arch stabilises then we can assume that is the |
| 10 |
>> maintainer arch. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Whoa, careful there. It's not a policy and it's not even |
| 13 |
> a recommendation. I believe there are arch teams that will |
| 14 |
> automatically stable a package after it has been ~arch for a period of |
| 15 |
> time. They will break your assumption. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Agreed, the PPC team is very good at arbitrarily marking things stable |
| 18 |
whenever they feel like it, and often times before the maintainer does. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Cheers, |
| 21 |
- -- |
| 22 |
Jason Wever |
| 23 |
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead |
| 24 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 25 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
iD8DBQFCpwQ6dKvgdVioq28RAkWIAKC2EgL3Kw4VxUmjPrSDh6TwHIMqrgCfcL9e |
| 28 |
4nXZ+A/KSwTcRnWVONy4K8I= |
| 29 |
=bxSK |
| 30 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives