| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:22:04PM +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2017-12-12 19:24, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > As far as I'm aware the standing policy already exists that |
| 4 |
> > maintainers can stabilize their own packages on amd64. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> That's right but keep in mind that nevertheless you need a stable |
| 7 |
> system. Marking a package stable because it works on your ~arch box you |
| 8 |
> use for your daily dev work would lead the whole process ad absurdum. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
In my discussions with other developers, I've found that this is the |
| 11 |
biggest concern. Most devs are runnning ~amd64, so they don't feel that |
| 12 |
they can mark things stable. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> And in general maintainer stabilization should be the last resort. The |
| 15 |
> person who wrote the ebuild maybe doesn't notice that the ebuild is |
| 16 |
> doing something wrong (doesn't honor CFLAGS, calls compiler directly, |
| 17 |
> not working with /bin/sh not /bin/bash ...). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
In theory, this is correct. However, when maintainers don't stabilize |
| 20 |
packages and no one else does either, our stable tree suffers. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
William |
Archives