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

[Carsten Lohrke]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 23 June 2004 15:37, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 19:53, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > I think that before this all, we first and all need to get absolutely
> > clear what we want to do with these keywords. As a package maintainer I
> > know that it can sometimes be displeasing when other archs mark your
> > package as stable. I do however not think that we need to spend that much
> > effort on the problem.
> >
> > If we want to spend the effort we however should first make clear the
> > purpose, not just make clear what the arch maintainer's keyword is
> > without making it clear what is the purpose of this knowledge.
>
> That's probably the most rational thing I've heard in this entire debate -
> not that it has all been irrational...
Right. When I wrote the email, which was followed by Aron's with his "stable" 
keyword idea, I had something else in mind. One point is, that Ciaran and 
Travis rather aggressive defend the status quo to be able to declare some 
ebuild stable on a specific arch (Please don't hack on me you two, I'm just 
stating not assessing it.). So all discussed ideas try to avoid these 
communication problem and to allow different development speeds on different 
architectures and weaken the role of the package maintainer. I consider this 
not a bad thing for fast evolving architectures , but it may cause other 
problems, like comparable and interoperable releases* on all supported 
architectures.

* I know that we don't really have releases, but don't forget there are 
thoughts about enterprise Gentoo and that not the always evolving nature of 
Gentoo will be measured from outside, but 200X.Y releases.


Carsten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA2aGGVwbzmvGLSW8RAhyqAKCLnOtHMLCaM1/iHV7Xo8ZbzbZ8cgCdFV5y
Z8j/R/GIhpFdDZo2P7m943w=
=O9Hr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list