Stuart Herbert wrote: [Sun Sep 04 2005, 03:26:37PM CDT] > 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'm still thinking about the concept of a "maint" option. This question I can answer, however. It's not unheard of for a package with a lot of dependencies to be marked stable when one of the dependencies has not yet been so marked. In that sort of tree-breaking case, the arch teams actually do know better, since they maintain ``arch`` systems (or chroots) for testing. > 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. I tend to think that's fair. At least in my view, the goal is not to minimize the importance of package maintainers, but simply to separate package maintainance from tree maintainance. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76
pgpG5yTpUWIv1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
