| 1 |
Hi! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On 9/20/15 1:23 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >> [0] I am pretty sure some arches will want to opt out of this |
| 8 |
> >> scheme, at least for some more critical packages. |
| 9 |
> > ALLARCHES shouldn't be used on critical packages. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Exactly. So suppose that we do stabilize a non-critical package on an |
| 12 |
> arch where it fails. We'll get a bug report for it and then deal with |
| 13 |
> the issue. Its not ideal, i know, but it seems an acceptable compromise |
| 14 |
> given manpower shortage. We tossed around an earlier version of the |
| 15 |
> idea in ppc/ppc64 when we were struggling for manpower and we were |
| 16 |
> getting council pressure to drop to ~arch. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This I am perfectly okay with; what I worry about is tree-level |
| 19 |
breakage (missing deps/slots, for example). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regards, |
| 22 |
Tobias |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Sent from aboard the Culture ship |
| 26 |
(ex) General Transport Craft (Interstellar-class) Now We Try It My Way |
Archives