| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thursday 24 June 2004 13:55, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 5 |
> Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Wed Jun 23 2004, 06:53:01AM EDT] |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > I think that before this all, we first and all need to get absolutely |
| 8 |
> > clear what we want to do with these keywords. As a package maintainer I |
| 9 |
> > know that it can sometimes be displeasing when other archs mark your |
| 10 |
> > package as stable. I do however not think that we need to spend that much |
| 11 |
> > effort on the problem. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > If we want to spend the effort we however should first make clear the |
| 14 |
> > purpose, not just make clear what the arch maintainer's keyword is |
| 15 |
> > without making it clear what is the purpose of this knowledge. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Right now I am going to bed, but I will make sure to include an |
| 18 |
> explanation of the goal and rationale for change in my next round-up, |
| 19 |
> which I will send out tomorrow. Thanks, I didn't mean to be pursuing |
| 20 |
> something that wasn't clear to everybody. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I thank you for your effort and wish you to continue. I just want to say that |
| 23 |
there may or may not be people who are actually unclear. However, what we are |
| 24 |
all aiming at is quality and, to have quality, absolutely nothing can be |
| 25 |
assumed. If you can define this one uncertainty (sp?) and then address the |
| 26 |
issue accordinly, we'll just about be done here. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iQCVAwUBQNr/0FoikN4/5jfsAQJb+wQAp9751QhFGDuoSyqtPEsBhYZrJUHmHYrA |
| 34 |
exxQLXIhdTuYA9vP9uRFv/EeRFS1yMJv6B2+vCbM3MJ6Iq2LsMVNwG6ZraiSdboW |
| 35 |
NGQhHzFX6NqSquko5+tRU6iJVS8nDt+LkdGa2DBl5UjA2FLyEfh+6SoP2pAZjIg8 |
| 36 |
gLl9dPKDktA= |
| 37 |
=LvT/ |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives