| 1 |
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:30:11 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Thursday 26 August 2004 17:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > Personally I prefer my original wording: |
| 5 |
| > > Arch teams: when moving from ~arch to arch on an actively |
| 6 |
| > > maintained package where you're going ahead of the maintainer's |
| 7 |
| > > arch, it's best to consult first. You don't necessarily have to |
| 8 |
| > > follow the maintainer's advice, but at least listen to what they |
| 9 |
| > > have to say. |
| 10 |
| |
| 11 |
| The problem is still the same: Other arch maintainers can't know, |
| 12 |
| which arch is the package maintainers arch. I would always deny or |
| 13 |
| mask it stable on my arch as well, if I had no objections. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
*sigh* x86 having broken stable gnome for two weeks and not realising |
| 16 |
it (whilst other archs who went ahead of x86 had it working) just goes |
| 17 |
to show that this is not always the case. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Oh, and you're assuming that all your packages are entirely arch |
| 20 |
neutral. This is also not always the case. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox) |
| 24 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 25 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives