| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700 |
| 4 |
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> - arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting |
| 6 |
>> KEYWORD changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional |
| 7 |
>> dependencies for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but |
| 8 |
>> really are required to make the necessary changes to add support for |
| 9 |
>> your architecture. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> arch-specific patches are almost always wrong. The last thing people |
| 12 |
> need is to come along and find some arch developer has applied a bad |
| 13 |
> arch-specific patch without asking first... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
Thing is, in such a case, the maintainer isn't going to be using the arch |
| 16 |
(or s/he'd have applied it already.) If there's a problem with the patch |
| 17 |
_on that arch_ (where else is it going to show up) the arch team (or the |
| 18 |
dev who applied it) is responsible for any bugs. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If there's a problem with getting the bugs assigned to that team, it's a |
| 21 |
different issue (which needs to be resolved ofc.) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You seem to be saying that arch teams are deliberately going to apply "bad |
| 24 |
patches" which makes no sense. If they do it's a QA and, ultimately, a |
| 25 |
devrel issue aiui. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives