| 1 |
On 6/1/08, Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:41:28 +0200 |
| 5 |
> > Raúl Porcel <armin76@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > IMHO the packages should be keyworded if an arch team member or an |
| 9 |
> > > user of that arch requests it. Keywording something if an user of |
| 10 |
> > > said arch doesn't request it, is a waste of resources. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > How is making things available to your users a waste of resources? |
| 14 |
> > Anyways, if you're so far behind that you don't think you can manage |
| 15 |
> > keywording another package then just say so and deny the request. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> ++ |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I'd like to comment that in theory a package maintainer should have a |
| 22 |
> decent idea of what archs a particular package should work on. I can't |
| 23 |
> imagine that the vmware maintainers are going to be sending keyword requests |
| 24 |
> to the sparc team... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Contrary to your theory I think in the past this has proven to be |
| 27 |
false; however I am not sure how often this was the case (eg. were |
| 28 |
just a few maintainers overzeallous or did we have widespread |
| 29 |
problems.) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> -- |
| 33 |
> gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives