| 1 |
On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs (jstubbs@g.o) wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of |
| 5 |
> > > package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more |
| 6 |
> > > testing", not "might work". |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > It's a bit of both. When you put a package into ~arch, it's in |
| 9 |
> > "testing", so that says it needs further "testing" since there still |
| 10 |
> > could be a not yet discovered bug, right? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Testing of the ebuild rather than of the package, though. This is the |
| 13 |
> point where people sometimes get confused. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That'd be me then :) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So we're talking about correctness of ebuilds (correct dependencies, |
| 18 |
use flag logic etc) and not whether the package actually works in depth. |
| 19 |
The latter is what caused me to suggest drawing together a large team of |
| 20 |
user-testers managed by arch-team devs. Correctness of ebuilds takes |
| 21 |
us back to a dev role and the ebuild quiz, since it's necessary to |
| 22 |
understand ebuilds to criticise them. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Kev. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives