| 1 |
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 08:11 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2 May 2007 22:00:05 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > What, people deliberately breaking policy that directly leads to |
| 5 |
> > breaking stable and not having any working ebuilds for a package in |
| 6 |
> > the tree, and then refusing to do anything about it is nothing? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > the issue has been taken care of |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > You have a conflict of interest in this one. What do other Council |
| 11 |
> > members who aren't games team members think? |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > > [to the detriment of users] |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > How is not having broken packages committed straight to stable |
| 16 |
> > detrimental to users? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I maintain and play a game called Eternal Lands. I'm a Council member, |
| 19 |
> but not part of the games team/herd. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> One of the problems games have with stable/unstable/testing/whatever |
| 22 |
> keywords is that upstream changes things that in any other application |
| 23 |
> just would not change. For example, the network protocol when talking |
| 24 |
> to servers. EL is very version specific and when a new client is |
| 25 |
> launched, around once every 6 months they change over right away. That |
| 26 |
> means our users need the game right away. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
ok, agreed, this is a valid point. so i would suggest, that maintainers |
| 29 |
of games where this argument applies, come to special agreements with |
| 30 |
the arch teams - or just file bugreports like this: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
" |
| 33 |
although games-foo/lord-of-bar-2.4.6 has just been bumped, i would like |
| 34 |
to have it stable real soon, as upstream has changed the network |
| 35 |
protocol. i have x86 and amd64 hardware available, and can confirm, that |
| 36 |
the game works nice there; so, if no one objects, i'm gonna mark |
| 37 |
lord-of-bar-2.4.6 stable on x86 and amd64 in two days. i would also like |
| 38 |
to have a shiny sparc keyword, but have no hardware to test. so it would |
| 39 |
be highly appreciated if someone from the sparc team can give the game a |
| 40 |
try. |
| 41 |
" |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
but committing straight to stable on arches where the package wasn't |
| 44 |
even tested is an absolute no-do for me. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> DISCLAIMER: I've not read the bug mentioned as I've lost the email |
| 47 |
> with it's number so I may just be talking out of my ass. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
no, in fact you are the first one that comes up with a valid argument, |
| 50 |
why games sometimes should go to stable almost immediately. sad, but |
| 51 |
true... |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives