| 1 |
Stuart Herbert wrote: [Sun Sep 04 2005, 03:26:37PM CDT] |
| 2 |
> I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their |
| 3 |
> own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. |
| 4 |
> Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform, |
| 5 |
> when is there ever a need for arch maintainers to decide that they know |
| 6 |
> better than package maintainers? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'm still thinking about the concept of a "maint" option. This |
| 9 |
question I can answer, however. It's not unheard of for a package with |
| 10 |
a lot of dependencies to be marked stable when one of the dependencies |
| 11 |
has not yet been so marked. In that sort of tree-breaking case, the |
| 12 |
arch teams actually do know better, since they maintain ``arch`` systems |
| 13 |
(or chroots) for testing. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> If this isn't confined - if arch maintainers are allowed to override |
| 16 |
> package maintainers wherever they want to - then arch teams need to take |
| 17 |
> on the support burden. Fair's fair - if it's the arch team creating the |
| 18 |
> support, it's only fair that they support users in these cases. It's |
| 19 |
> completely unfair - and unrealistic - to expect a package maintainer to |
| 20 |
> support a package he/she thinks isn't fit to be stable on an arch that |
| 21 |
> he/she probably doesn't use anyway. In such a conflict of egos, the |
| 22 |
> real losers remain our users. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I tend to think that's fair. At least in my view, the goal is not to |
| 25 |
minimize the importance of package maintainers, but simply to separate |
| 26 |
package maintainance from tree maintainance. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-g2boojum- |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 31 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 32 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 33 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 34 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives