Re: [gentoo-dev] summary: proposed solutions to arches/stable problem

[foser]

On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:08 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > Read my other reply to where you say the same thing : it's duplication
> > of info. Duplication is bad.
> >
> > - foser
> >
> I don't think it's just duplication.  There have been so many of these, I
> am not sure which one to attach this thought to, so I picked this one
> because it is short.  And, if I understand your point, this speaks to it.
>
> I am arch(sparc), so for definiteness, I use sparc as a placeholder for
> any architecture.
>
> 1.  In one instance, if I, as sparc, mark something as KEYWORDS=sparc, it
>     means essentially one thing:  In my best judgment this package is
>     stable for use on sparc.  It doesn't say anything about other
>     architectures (except as evidence of goodness).

You are not the package maintainer, you should not mark it stable before
that happens. So your arch going stable has no wider significance.

> 2.  In a second instance, I am sparc & package maintainer. Now, if I
>     mark this package stable on sparc, I might mean one or more of at
>     least two possibilities:
>       a.  I am package maintainer, I believe this package is stable,
>           and I happen to be on sparc.
>       b.  I believe this package is stable on sparc, and I happen to
>           be its maintainer.

What is the difference between a & b, they look the same to me. If you
are the package maintainer and sparc is your arch, then that means that
it is now safe for other arches to move to stable as well (if they do
not have arch specific issues).

A 'package maintainer' is someone who is responsible for the general
ebuild, not it's arch specific parts. But naturally, the 'package
maintainer' is on some arch and will take care of needs specific for
that arch as well.

- foser