Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 05:12:14
Message-Id: lb55a2$iqd$1@ger.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by William Hubbs
1 On 01/15/2014 03:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
2 > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:48:53AM +0700, grozin@g.o wrote:
3 >> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, William Hubbs wrote:
4 >>> 1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on arch's
5 >>> they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arch teams, but I
6 >>> think it would be good to formalize it.
7 >> +1
8 >>
9 >> Also, there is a substantial number of packages which contain only python
10 >> code (or perl, ruby), or only LaTeX classes, or only documentation. It
11 >> makes no sense to test them on each arch separately. I think maintainers
12 >> should be allowed to stabilize such packages (with no compiled code) on
13 >> all arches.
14 >
15 > There is a reason we don't do this, back in Gentoo history somewhere, but I
16 > don't remember what it was.
17 >
18 > If someone can tell us why this isn't allowed I am all ears. Otherwise,
19 > I could agree on this point as well.
20 >
21 > William
22 >
23 I don't know the exact situation, but the devmanual[1] provides a little
24 insight: "Do not assume that because your code is written in Perl /
25 Python / Java / whatever that it will run on other archs (there is at
26 least one case of a vim script which only worked on x86)."
27
28 [1]: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/#keywording-new-packages