| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 06:31:50PM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 18:20:11 schrieb William Hubbs: |
| 3 |
> > I know I'm replying to my own message, but I do have a concern about |
| 4 |
> > this that I want to ask about. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > When a stable request is filed for a package, it is filed for all |
| 7 |
> > architectures which have the ~arch keyword for the package and are |
| 8 |
> > marked stable or dev in profiles.desc. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > If an arch wants to stay marked stable or dev but only stabilize a |
| 11 |
> > subset of packages, I think it is reasonable to drop that arch's |
| 12 |
> > keywords from packages they decide not to stabilize rather than move the |
| 13 |
> > keywords to ~arch. That makes it obvious that we shouldn't file stable |
| 14 |
> > requests on that package for that arch. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I'd say the decision should be made by the arch team, not by the package |
| 17 |
> maintainer. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Means, arch teams can drop keywors in packages, but normally stabilization |
| 20 |
> goes ahead as usual and requests are filed. Whether they are then honoured is |
| 21 |
> another question. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If an arch team isn't going to honor a stable request, shouldn't they |
| 24 |
remove themselves from it and say so? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Also, if an arch team does that, does that mean we don't have to file |
| 27 |
stable requests for that arch on future versions of the package? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
William |
Archives