| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 5 |
> Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of |
| 6 |
> what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a |
| 7 |
> package stable. The only information I've been able to find states that they |
| 8 |
> could cause a performance hit, but this doesn't seem to warrant banning them |
| 9 |
> completely in my eyes. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Getting a clear cut policy on exactly what issues should hold a package back |
| 12 |
> from being marked stable is what I'm looking for. Issues like textrels, |
| 13 |
> executable stacks, etc is what I'm looking for to be defined and explained why |
| 14 |
> we are to always avoid them. This should be added to existing documentation |
| 15 |
> policy so it is somewhere for new devs to know about, and existing devs to |
| 16 |
> have for a reference. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Thanks |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
Only problem I see with this is binary packages. We can not control |
| 21 |
upstream binaries as everyone is aware of. So when does it become safe |
| 22 |
to override stable packages that have texrel's and executable stacks? |
| 23 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 24 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 25 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
iD8DBQFDn2BVGDfjNg8unQIRAupGAKCiTPJseSVrklDjWXqwEdeHFDxnRQCcD0xQ |
| 28 |
mzjn2yXHiNSdBcnFkCTD+u0= |
| 29 |
=RYEw |
| 30 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives