| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 01:20, Jason Wever wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Personally, I would rather run into a package breaking in a revbump than |
| 8 |
>> have it be missing keywords and not notified that it was behind. While yes |
| 9 |
>> this stinks from a QA perspective, it also gets the problem addressed and |
| 10 |
>> resolved quicker (usually) than running into it later on down the road. |
| 11 |
>> It's also a lot easier wrt the overhead the package maintainers, arch |
| 12 |
>> maintainers and infrastructure maintainers have to go through to |
| 13 |
>> accomidate extra emails, bugs, etc if test requests had to be issued each |
| 14 |
>> time a package got rev or version bumped in the portage tree. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> So for Sparc, I should just KEYWORD away (on non-critical packages) and |
| 17 |
> hope nothing breaks? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sorry, this was meant only for causes where previous revisions of a given |
| 20 |
package had sparc or ~sparc keywords and the package maintainer is |
| 21 |
uncertain of whether to keep them or not going forward. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
- -- |
| 24 |
Jason Wever |
| 25 |
Gentoo/Sparc Co-Team Lead |
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iD8DBQFBLgJPdKvgdVioq28RAkQRAKCkiOgXHAyoScGVhFJbt0FpHclAfwCgmy3b |
| 30 |
Zj4qAnPlhHi8MMhjeKAcVBA= |
| 31 |
=2Ol2 |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives