| 1 |
On 07/12/2017 04:19 PM, NP-Hardass wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/12/2017 09:47 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 06:56:25PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Dear all, |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> The new Gentoo Council will meet on Sunday, July 16th at 19:00 UTC |
| 7 |
>>> in #gentoo-council on FreeNode. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to discuss |
| 10 |
>>> or vote on. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Based on the on-going discussion about stabilization policies, I would |
| 13 |
>> like to ask the council to consider moving glep 40 to withdrawn status. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Thanks, |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> William |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I feel like the best approach would be: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> 1) amend GLEP 40 to be about all arches |
| 23 |
Addendum: #1 is there because it is my impression that while GLEP 40 was |
| 24 |
originally written targeting x86, it has been the defacto policy for all |
| 25 |
arches (with the exception of the individual arrangements aspect wrt |
| 26 |
x86/amd64) |
| 27 |
> 2) have amd64 and x86 arch teams publish on their project wiki pages |
| 28 |
> that their official stance wrt the "individual arrangements" portion of |
| 29 |
> GLEP 40 is that they are open to all developers running and testing on a |
| 30 |
> stable installation of that arch to stabilize their own packages |
| 31 |
> 3) work on replacing GLEP 40 with something better |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
NP-Hardass |
Archives