| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 02:09 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 5 |
> A package maintainer doubles as arch maintainer for that package and |
| 6 |
> shouldn't be forced to hold it back from stable on an arch it is stable |
| 7 |
> on just because it isn't stable on every arch. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> That kind of freedom from essentially pointless inter-arch dependencies |
| 10 |
> is one of the things I enjoy about Gentoo. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I agree. Whether or not a package is stable on one arch should not be |
| 13 |
dependent on another. x86 is certainly the most widely used arch, but one |
| 14 |
arch shouldn't have control over all others. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I could be mistaken, but isn't this whole conversation basically splitting |
| 17 |
hairs over who controls what aspect of an ebuild's lifecycle? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Ebuild maintainers are supposed to write stable /ebuilds/ for Gentoo. Arch |
| 20 |
maintainers are supposed to make sure the /applications/ installed by those |
| 21 |
ebuilds are stable during runtime. There's a clear line between the two job |
| 22 |
functions. Yes, it is common for a dev to fill both roles. But in the case |
| 23 |
of someone (like me) who is /only/ an arch maintainer, who wins out when |
| 24 |
determining the stability of the installed application? I don't think it's |
| 25 |
the ebuild maintainer, since that individual may have no access to my arch. |
| 26 |
We're arch maintainers-- that's our job. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Our team tests packages all the time. Just because x86 doesn't move their |
| 29 |
packages to stable doesn't mean other arches should have to wait on them. |
| 30 |
Our team has added on several new devs to address the issues we've had in the |
| 31 |
past with having a "stable" tree that is outdated. We want our arch to |
| 32 |
remain as up-to-date as possible. We're arch maintainers-- that's our job. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The keywording policy has always been that a package must remain in "testing" |
| 35 |
for at least 30 days without a bug report being filed on it. Our team has |
| 36 |
made an effort to move packages into stable as soon as they meet that |
| 37 |
criteria. That policy has been very successful over the last year, with a |
| 38 |
very small number of exceptions. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
- -- |
| 41 |
Jason Huebel |
| 42 |
Gentoo/amd64 Strategic Lead |
| 43 |
Gentoo Developer Relations/Recruiter |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
GPG Public Key: |
| 46 |
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9BA9E230 |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
"Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand." |
| 49 |
Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677) |
| 50 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 51 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
iD8DBQFA2eClbNgbbJup4jARAvOVAJ0RqNBCSFq0T615/KbRfBAm0MvPegCePKwt |
| 54 |
iXsnPPGAud7B5h0+FTIxLfE= |
| 55 |
=9Ul/ |
| 56 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives