| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 20:47 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:35:31 -0700 Donnie Berkholz |
| 3 |
> <spyderous@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me. |
| 6 |
> | > Like I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea of *any* |
| 7 |
> | > architecture being my "primary" one just doesn't really fit. |
| 8 |
> | > There's also the simple fact that it doesn't matter *at all* what |
| 9 |
> | > the maintainer runs it on, only whether or not (s)he considers it |
| 10 |
> | > stable. |
| 11 |
> | |
| 12 |
> | There have been many cases where I've considered a package stable on |
| 13 |
> | one architecture but not on another. How would I indicate this? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> This would be one of the cases where a maintainer / stable keyword |
| 16 |
> would be inappropriate. I suspect there are a lot more of these than |
| 17 |
> some people think... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
We already have: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
arch - in theory stable |
| 23 |
~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing |
| 24 |
-arch - do not work at all |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the |
| 27 |
summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should cover |
| 28 |
those things that sorda work on the arch, but you rather want developers |
| 29 |
or experienced users that can patch bugs to look at it ... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Sure it will still leave some holes, but will be a bit more flexible |
| 32 |
than a single maintainer keyword. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Martin Schlemmer |
Archives