| 1 |
On Saturday, 05. January 2008 18:19:10 Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> This thread so far spawned lots of reply from an external contributor |
| 3 |
> making the point of keeping stale ebuilds around and 4 developers |
| 4 |
> against the idea |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Make that 5. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Anything other suggestions? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Let the maintainer of said package decide on the keywording (and therefore |
| 11 |
how to handle slacker arches). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
An example: An arch cares more about e. g. games (and proudly blogs about |
| 14 |
it) than KDE. In such a case in the future I'm going to try to work it |
| 15 |
out with the respective arch and if they don't react in a timely manner, |
| 16 |
I'll simply remove the stale ebuilds (or whatever action is appropriate). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
And, if that has happened often enough, I will take appropriate steps to |
| 19 |
make sure such stuff doesn't happen again, e. g. by making sure the |
| 20 |
ebuilds I maintain are not keyworded by the respective arch again until |
| 21 |
their problems have been resolved. As will be the case for KDE4. It won't |
| 22 |
get any mips keyword. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As for Ciaran's remarks - yes, theoretically, he is right but I don't see |
| 25 |
him arch testing for mips so his remarks are pretty meaningless to me. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, Wulf |
Archives