| 1 |
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:16:37 +0100 Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 20:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > If the package maintainer doesn't think their package is ready, it |
| 5 |
| > should be in package.mask. |
| 6 |
| |
| 7 |
| I'm not arguing against that. I agree with it. Please stop trying to |
| 8 |
| hijack this and divert attention away from my point. I'm asking |
| 9 |
| nicely :) |
| 10 |
| |
| 11 |
| I'm asking that you assume any support burden that you create. It |
| 12 |
| only seems fair. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Stabling a package which is not in packahe.mask is only a support |
| 15 |
burden if package maintainers are abusing ~arch. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
| If you're in an arch team, the package maintainer doesn't agree that |
| 18 |
| the package should be stable, and you're not willing to take on the |
| 19 |
| support for that package either, don't stabilise it. We shouldn't |
| 20 |
| stabilise packages where no-one's willing to support it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If you don't agree that it should be stable, don't move it out out of |
| 23 |
package.mask. ~arch is for stable candidates, and by sticking a package |
| 24 |
you maintain in ~arch you are implicitly asking for it to be tested |
| 25 |
with the aim of marking it stable. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) |
| 29 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 30 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives