Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:19:06
Message-Id: 1389773935.16656.3.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by William Hubbs
1 On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 22:49 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
2 > > Also, there is a substantial number of packages which contain only python
3 > > code (or perl, ruby), or only LaTeX classes, or only documentation. It
4 > > makes no sense to test them on each arch separately. I think maintainers
5 > > should be allowed to stabilize such packages (with no compiled code) on
6 > > all arches.
7 >
8 > There is a reason we don't do this, back in Gentoo history somewhere, but I
9 > don't remember what it was.
10 >
11 > If someone can tell us why this isn't allowed I am all ears. Otherwise,
12 > I could agree on this point as well.
14 Speaking for ruby I have seen various arch-related bugs in pure ruby
15 code. It doesn't happen a lot (maybe 1% of stable requests) but it is
16 also not predictable.
18 I also like the second set of eyes verifying what we've done as part of
19 marking a package stable, so I probably would still file bugs rather
20 than marking stuff stable myself.
22 Hans