| 1 |
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 12:58 -0500, Jason Huebel wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 06:34 am, foser wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 20:07 -0500, Jason Huebel wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 8 |
> > > Hash: SHA1 |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > On Tuesday 22 June 2004 04:54 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 11 |
> > > > Option 2: |
| 12 |
> > > > STABLE="yes" |
| 13 |
> > > > STABLE="no" |
| 14 |
> > > > This is pretty straightforward, so I won't go in depth here. |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > Damn, Donnie beat me to this. I prefer this over all the other solutions |
| 17 |
> > > presented. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Read my other reply to where you say the same thing : it's duplication |
| 20 |
> > of info. Duplication is bad. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > - foser |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> This isn't duplication of information. Whether or not an ebuild is considered |
| 25 |
> stable by the arch maintainer is a QA issue and should not affect users. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
'maintainer arch' + stable state of the ebuild on the 'maintainers arch' |
| 28 |
is the indication of stability, adding an extra line for that is |
| 29 |
duplication. The question here is about how to indicate the maintainers |
| 30 |
arch. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So STABLE is duplication. If you want to avoid changing keywords (what |
| 33 |
the basis seems for your like of this solution) the solution is to add |
| 34 |
MAINTAINERS_ARCH or INDICATOR_ARCH or something. Long term I personally |
| 35 |
do think it's better to use KEYWORDS for this for simplicity sake, but |
| 36 |
spyderous has a serious argument there with the backwards compatability. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
- foser |
Archives