1 |
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 00:25 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:59:17PM -0600, Jory A. Pratt wrote: |
3 |
> > Mark Loeser wrote: |
4 |
> > > Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of |
5 |
> > > what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a |
6 |
> > > package stable. The only information I've been able to find states that they |
7 |
> > > could cause a performance hit, but this doesn't seem to warrant banning them |
8 |
> > > completely in my eyes. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > Getting a clear cut policy on exactly what issues should hold a package back |
11 |
> > > from being marked stable is what I'm looking for. Issues like textrels, |
12 |
> > > executable stacks, etc is what I'm looking for to be defined and explained why |
13 |
> > > we are to always avoid them. This should be added to existing documentation |
14 |
> > > policy so it is somewhere for new devs to know about, and existing devs to |
15 |
> > > have for a reference. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > Only problem I see with this is binary packages. We can not control |
18 |
> > upstream binaries as everyone is aware of. So when does it become safe |
19 |
> > to override stable packages that have texrel's and executable stacks? |
20 |
> |
21 |
> no idea what you mean by "override", but here's a crazy idea ... ask |
22 |
> upstream to fix the issues. for example, we just reported executable |
23 |
> stacks with the ut2004 game and Ryan of epicgames was so kind as to |
24 |
> fix it up for us. some upstream peeps dont even know about these sort |
25 |
> of things until you point them out. |
26 |
|
27 |
Actually, it is not fixed yet. Ryan is aware of the issue, but it was |
28 |
not fixed in the latest version. There was an error on my part that |
29 |
made me think it was fixed. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Chris Gianelloni |
33 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
34 |
x86 Architecture Team |
35 |
Games - Developer |
36 |
Gentoo Linux |