Re: [gentoo-dev] summary: proposed solutions to arches/stable problem

[Donnie Berkholz]

On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 14:39, foser wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:08 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > > Read my other reply to where you say the same thing : it's duplication
> > > of info. Duplication is bad.
> > >
> > > - foser
> > >
> > I don't think it's just duplication.  There have been so many of these, I
> > am not sure which one to attach this thought to, so I picked this one
> > because it is short.  And, if I understand your point, this speaks to it.
> >
> > I am arch(sparc), so for definiteness, I use sparc as a placeholder for
> > any architecture.
> >
> > 1.  In one instance, if I, as sparc, mark something as KEYWORDS=sparc, it
> >     means essentially one thing:  In my best judgment this package is
> >     stable for use on sparc.  It doesn't say anything about other
> >     architectures (except as evidence of goodness).
>
> You are not the package maintainer, you should not mark it stable before
> that happens. So your arch going stable has no wider significance.

A package maintainer doubles as arch maintainer for that package and
shouldn't be forced to hold it back from stable on an arch it is stable
on just because it isn't stable on every arch.

That kind of freedom from essentially pointless inter-arch dependencies
is one of the things I enjoy about Gentoo.
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux