| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 19:53, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Tuesday 22 June 2004 23:33, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 6 |
> > At this point I've made a couple suggestions, and developers have |
| 7 |
> > voiced either support or objections, and raised some good arguments |
| 8 |
> > either way. I'm hoping this email will summarize the three suggested |
| 9 |
> > approaches, their pros and cons, and we can eventually converge on a |
| 10 |
> > single solution. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I think that before this all, we first and all need to get absolutely clear |
| 13 |
> what we want to do with these keywords. As a package maintainer I know that |
| 14 |
> it can sometimes be displeasing when other archs mark your package as |
| 15 |
> stable. I do however not think that we need to spend that much effort on |
| 16 |
> the problem. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> If we want to spend the effort we however should first make clear the |
| 19 |
> purpose, not just make clear what the arch maintainer's keyword is without |
| 20 |
> making it clear what is the purpose of this knowledge. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That's probably the most rational thing I've heard in this entire debate - not |
| 23 |
that it has all been irrational... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 27 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 28 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
iQCVAwUBQNmHgVoikN4/5jfsAQL+egP/Yb98ac1FeztSFkEBEdmIqeQpOhwLNUql |
| 31 |
e0w7gabShaFvl3loCgHkmkl9B5/06CsLpONmTjqGSVDW4VHZvry/8TZyBCsJu4Sx |
| 32 |
aCglP0KMdYnGh7TainsyuM6DhB7t3x48fUUqubN9n6Ekx8AyhUQATYbGkYHcU6+W |
| 33 |
GoNzvTOHIKc= |
| 34 |
=62ch |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives