| 1 |
On Sunday 04 September 2005 23:39, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Grant, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I'm still thinking about the concept of a "maint" option. This |
| 6 |
> > question I can answer, however. It's not unheard of for a package |
| 7 |
> > with a lot of dependencies to be marked stable when one of the |
| 8 |
> > dependencies has not yet been so marked. In that sort of |
| 9 |
> > tree-breaking case, the arch teams actually do know better, since |
| 10 |
> > they maintain ``arch`` systems (or chroots) for testing. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Yes, but if package maintainers aren't allowed to mark packages as |
| 13 |
> stable on anything but the "maintainer arch" (unless they are also a |
| 14 |
> member of an arch team), this problem shouldn't happen. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package |
| 17 |
> stable is to mark it stable on a "real" arch. Creating the |
| 18 |
> "maintainer" arch solves this very problem. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I agree with this. It should also be a simple, backwards compatible |
| 21 |
solution. Just don't call it maintainer, but maint or something like |
| 22 |
that ;-) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Paul |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 28 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 29 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 30 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives