| 1 |
Ferris McCormick wrote: [Tue Jun 22 2004, 11:59:44AM EDT] |
| 2 |
> I rather like this approach. I think it addresses the maintainers' |
| 3 |
> concerns, and allows the arch maintainers to proceed if necessary. |
| 4 |
> Maybe your suggestion can help cool off this discussion. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
:-) I'm glad you like it. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
What do you think of my more recent suggestion, that we use the first |
| 9 |
keyword in the list to indicate the maintainer's arch, thereby |
| 10 |
alleviating the need for an additional keyword? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> (And it provides for useful feedback to the maintainer: after all, |
| 13 |
> if she sees her package going stable on all architectures but hers, |
| 14 |
> that's useful information.) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> But, truth in labeling requires me to identify myself as an |
| 17 |
> arch-type (sparc) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I was just thinking about this at lunch. I hope that I have a good |
| 20 |
perspective, since I maintain numerous packages but also work on alpha |
| 21 |
and ia64. I really have one foot in each camp. ;-) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Regards, |
| 24 |
Aron |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Aron Griffis |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives