| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> With regards to bug #304435[1], we would like to formalise the policy for |
| 5 |
> touching arch profiles' files. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The key suggested points: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> * Archs profiles should generally only be touched by members of that arch |
| 10 |
> team, unless prior permission is given |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> * Exception: anyone may add a mask to an arch profile only if |
| 13 |
> - it delays visibility of something new for that arch (eg. |
| 14 |
> dependencies introduced in a version bump), and |
| 15 |
> - it is not reasonable to follow the standard keyword dropping |
| 16 |
> procedure (many other packages would be affected), and |
| 17 |
> - the responsible arch team is not responsive |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> * The person touching arch profiles is responsible for the subsequent |
| 20 |
> maintenance of said entries, and any subsequent breakage. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Thoughts? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Best regards, |
| 25 |
> Michael |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> [1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=304435 |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
As Tommy[D] pointed out in IRC, developers are free(wrong word?) to |
| 31 |
touch package.use.mask for their packages but they should get an ACK |
| 32 |
for use.mask or just tell arches to do it on their behalf. This is an |
| 33 |
addition to what you have already said above. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Regards, |
| 37 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
Archives