| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 9:44:41 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh (ciaranm@g.o) wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" |
| 6 |
> | > <kevquinn@g.o> |
| 7 |
> | > wrote: |
| 8 |
> | > | 3) All packages need to be assigned an x86 arch team member |
| 9 |
> | > | responsible. |
| 10 |
> | > |
| 11 |
> | > Why? |
| 12 |
> | |
| 13 |
> | Because if only the x86 arch team can mark stuff stable, anything |
| 14 |
> | without representation on the x86 arch team will stay unstable |
| 15 |
> | forever. Maybe rather than one specific arch team member, several |
| 16 |
> | would undertake to manage otherwise unassigned packages. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> There are currently ~700 packages which are not visible to x86 or ~x86 |
| 19 |
> users. Do these need an x86 arch team member? Is it the aim of the x86 |
| 20 |
> arch team to cover the entire tree, or only things which are useful to |
| 21 |
> x86 users? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This is a good point... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If nobody on x86 is using a given package, is there a need to worry |
| 26 |
about marking it ~x86/x86? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This is how we handle things on the mips team -- that is, unless a user |
| 29 |
comes to us saying "Package foobar works on mips, can you please add |
| 30 |
~mips for me", we normally don't worry about it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Maintaining keywords on _every_ package in the tree, IMHO would be a |
| 33 |
waste of effort unless there are a significant number of users actually |
| 34 |
using _every_ package in the tree. |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
____ _ Stuart Longland (a.k.a Redhatter) |
| 37 |
/ _ \ ___ ___ __| |__ __ __ Gentoo Linux/MIPS Cobalt and Docs |
| 38 |
- (_) \ / \ ; \(__ __)/ \ / \ Developer |
| 39 |
\ // O _| / /\ \ | | | /\ | /\ | |
| 40 |
/ / \ /__| / \ \ | | | \/ | \/ | |
| 41 |
(___/ \____/|_; |_| \_/ \__/ \__/ http://dev.gentoo.org/~redhatter |
Archives