| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:49:47 -0500 |
| 2 |
Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I also would hesitate to auto-~arch fairly critical packages, such as X |
| 5 |
> or anything in system. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
For larger || more troublesome || tool-chain type packages, we've |
| 8 |
historically worked with the package maintainers in keywording new |
| 9 |
versions to help with this. In cases like this that is |
| 10 |
acceptable/agreeable. This might be a fine print item for that portion of |
| 11 |
the handbook. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Personally, I would rather run into a package breaking in a revbump than |
| 14 |
have it be missing keywords and not notified that it was behind. While yes |
| 15 |
this stinks from a QA perspective, it also gets the problem addressed and |
| 16 |
resolved quicker (usually) than running into it later on down the road. |
| 17 |
It's also a lot easier wrt the overhead the package maintainers, arch |
| 18 |
maintainers and infrastructure maintainers have to go through to |
| 19 |
accomidate extra emails, bugs, etc if test requests had to be issued each |
| 20 |
time a package got rev or version bumped in the portage tree. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Granted that's just my preference, but I've got my flame retardant |
| 23 |
underoos on so fire away ;) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Jason Wever |
| 28 |
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead |
Archives