| 1 |
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:23:33 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| > Feedback please. I advocate this approach for 'minor' packages, i.e. |
| 4 |
| > nothing fundamental to the working of the system. It's more suitable |
| 5 |
| > for scripting language libraries and minor applications (e.g. |
| 6 |
| > obscure window managers). |
| 7 |
| |
| 8 |
| A more appropriate option would be to allow users to test packages |
| 9 |
| that have not been marked as broken on their arg and then have a |
| 10 |
| policy that if at least two users have reported a package as stable, |
| 11 |
| and an arch dev can compile it it will be marked testing, and stable |
| 12 |
| if it has no problems within a reasonable time period. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This is basically how we do things for sparc already. For non-core |
| 15 |
packages with sane dependencies, if it is reported as working by a user |
| 16 |
(bugzilla or over irc) and it compiles then we'll usually keyword it up |
| 17 |
pretty quickly. This is how we handle a lot of the more obscure |
| 18 |
packages. "It works" reports are always welcomed :) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 22 |
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 23 |
Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives