| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Tom Martin wrote: |
| 5 |
> I'm not sure I like this. I think it would be too slow. I'd rather have |
| 6 |
> a concept of maintainer arch (the reason I still like the old keyword |
| 7 |
> ordering, because there was at least *some* idea of maintainer arch. In |
| 8 |
> fact, I used to fiddle the keywords every now and again when I took over |
| 9 |
> a package and the maintainer arch changed). Policy, for a long time, has |
| 10 |
> been that no arch team should go stable ahead of a package maintainer |
| 11 |
> without his approval. This works fine. Now, some packages are going into |
| 12 |
> Portage without the x86 keyword (for example, viewglob, which I recently |
| 13 |
> committed. I don't have an x86 machine) and a non-x86 maintainer. All |
| 14 |
> that we need is an x86 arch team to do the same jobs as other |
| 15 |
> architectures: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> a) Test packages that aren't yet keyworded. |
| 18 |
> b) Keep keywords up-to-date -- imlate. Although imlate currently |
| 19 |
> compares against x86 by default, scanning x86 against a few other archs |
| 20 |
> isn't a major bottleneck. |
| 21 |
> c) Keep up with security bugs, with a proper security contact. Tester, I |
| 22 |
> believe you're filling this role at the moment? |
| 23 |
> d) Possibly arch testers. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Maybe I'm seeing this all wrong, but the fact is, the number of packages |
| 26 |
> that need x86 arch team lovin' are pretty small, despite the number of |
| 27 |
> overall keyworded packages being large. I don't think the x86 arch team |
| 28 |
> needs to be very large: I think ten developers is plenty. I just don't |
| 29 |
> know what they'd be doing if there were more. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Thoughts? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I took Kevin's 2) to mean that the arch team *developers* wouldn't do |
| 35 |
the actual testing; the arch team testers (a sub-group of the arch team) |
| 36 |
would do the testing. Is that correct? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
b) You could have imlate compare against the new -maint ~maint maint |
| 39 |
keywords (or whatever gets settled on). |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Having the 'maint' keyword would help with the 'no arch team should go |
| 42 |
stable ahead of a package maintainer without his approval' policy. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I would structure it like this: |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
i. Package maintainers control the 'maint' keyword. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
ii. Arch teams control their respective 'arch' keywords, but do not go |
| 49 |
stable before 'maint'. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
iii. Package maintainers could optionally keyword their packages as |
| 52 |
~arch for their 'native platform'. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
That should keep the responsibilities clear and things moving, correct? |
| 55 |
Rule iii would also give you the same functionality as the maintainer |
| 56 |
arch without having the cludge keyword ordering. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Nathan |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 61 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
iD8DBQFDHF/A2QTTR4CNEQARAkqkAJ9/zn7Sa/Bj+H5ZKuWSyVl6RNeiVwCfQa+0 |
| 64 |
oH0hUWT025XDS8aEhrc9Cvg= |
| 65 |
=bSCC |
| 66 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives