| 1 |
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:19:47 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Sometimes it is the case that because of the state of the package or |
| 4 |
| the ebuild (missing features) you don't want to make a certain ebuild |
| 5 |
| stable at all. Or that you know that it could create problems not |
| 6 |
| directly related to the ebuild being bad. In any case from a |
| 7 |
| maintainer viewpoint is is quite anoying to have your judgement |
| 8 |
| challenged under your fingers. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If an ebuild is missing significant things or conflicting with other |
| 11 |
packages, it should be in package.mask. ~ isn't a dumping ground for |
| 12 |
known broken ebuilds, it's an indication that the package is a candidate |
| 13 |
for stable after testing. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
| > Incidentally, it would be nice if stable keywording wasn't the |
| 16 |
| > domain of the package maintainers at all. That should be a job for |
| 17 |
| > arch teams, since individual package maintainers don't know the |
| 18 |
| > state of any given arch. Unfortunately, I don't think the x86 team |
| 19 |
| > is big enough to keep up with that kind of thing yet, given the |
| 20 |
| > number of packages keyworded for them... |
| 21 |
| |
| 22 |
| Is there a x86 team? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yes. They seem to mostly do security bugs right now. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox) |
| 28 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 29 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives