Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:27:12
Message-Id: BLUZKR.1873110678A9OIWK@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting by Daniel Ostrow
1 How about if the maintainer wants wider testing, i.e. wants to move
2 it out of package.mask and into ~arch but isn't confident it's ready
3 yet for arch, adding a string variable to ebuilds indicating why the
4 maintainer considers the package unstable, eg:
5
6 UNSTABLE="#100435, #100345, unconfirmed break with foo"
7
8 The maintainer would simply alter this line as bugs get confirmed or
9 resolved. If a package wants to stay ~arch for longer than normal,
10 even though there are as yet no reports of problems, the maintainer
11 can just keep it set to something:
12
13 UNSTABLE="gaining maturity"
14
15 The arch team could consider an ebuild without an UNSTABLE line
16 as a candidate for stable, and it provides an easy way for maintainers
17 to communicate what issues are known with a package to the arch team
18 (and anyone else who is interested).
19
20 The 30-day could be calculated from the $Header: of ebuilds that have
21 no UNSTABLE, or where it's empty.
22
23 Kev.
24
25 --
26 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>