Re: [gentoo-dev] Textrels in packages policy

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 00:25 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:59:17PM -0600, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> > Mark Loeser wrote:
> > > Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of
> > > what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a
> > > package stable.  The only information I've been able to find states that they
> > > could cause a performance hit, but this doesn't seem to warrant banning them
> > > completely in my eyes.
> > >
> > > Getting a clear cut policy on exactly what issues should hold a package back
> > > from being marked stable is what I'm looking for.  Issues like textrels,
> > > executable stacks, etc is what I'm looking for to be defined and explained why
> > > we are to always avoid them.  This should be added to existing documentation
> > > policy so it is somewhere for new devs to know about, and existing devs to
> > > have for a reference.
> >
> > Only problem I see with this is binary packages. We can not control
> > upstream binaries as everyone is aware of. So when does it become safe
> > to override stable packages that have texrel's and executable stacks?
>
> no idea what you mean by "override", but here's a crazy idea ... ask
> upstream to fix the issues.  for example, we just reported executable
> stacks with the ut2004 game and Ryan of epicgames was so kind as to
> fix it up for us.  some upstream peeps dont even know about these sort
> of things until you point them out.

Let me take that back again.  This is resolved on amd64, but not on x86.
There's 2 binaries.  This also explains why I didn't see the error and
closed the bug, I'm on amd64, whereas the bug reporter is on x86.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux