On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:26:37 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Arch teams need to be allowed to override maintainers where | > appropriate, | | Why not talk to the package maintainers instead, and convince them | that you need a different version marking "maint" instead? Why | "override" (which, tbh, smacks of "we arch teams know best, life would | be better without package maintainers") when you could work with | people instead? You're *not* in competition with package | maintainers. We're all supposed to be working towards the same | thing :)
Sure, we do that anyway. However, sometimes package maintainers are outright wrong. | 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? Pretty regularly. A significant number of package maintainers have a very shoddy attitude towards QA, and a significant number of upstreams have no clue what portability is. | 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. If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more testing", not "might work". -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
pgp8nSNFDtcdA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
