Stuart Herbert wrote:
I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform, when is there ever a need for arch maintainers to decide that they know better than package maintainers?
I assume you're talking of the case where arch team and maintainer's arch are the same. I think normally package maintainers can decide better whether their package should go stable on their arch than an arch team, as they get all the bugs for it. On the other hand, we can't define a "maintainer arch" in many cases, so either we leave the authority to the arch team or we'll just have an x86 arch team without the expected effects.
If this isn't confined - if arch maintainers are allowed to override package maintainers wherever they want to - then arch teams need to take on the support burden. Fair's fair - if it's the arch team creating the support, it's only fair that they support users in these cases. It's completely unfair - and unrealistic - to expect a package maintainer to support a package he/she thinks isn't fit to be stable on an arch that he/she probably doesn't use anyway. In such a conflict of egos, the real losers remain our users.
That'd mean that you normally have assigned to the maintainer and x86@ in CC or vice versa, right? For that you need a huuuge x86 arch team...
It's just a word. Provided the concept is agreed on, the word isn't the most important thing in the world.
I'd prefer machamalahalabad ;) Regards, -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
