Hi Grant, On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > 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.
Yes, but if package maintainers aren't allowed to mark packages as stable on anything but the "maintainer arch" (unless they are also a member of an arch team), this problem shouldn't happen. At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package stable is to mark it stable on a "real" arch. Creating the "maintainer" arch solves this very problem. Best regards, Stu -- Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/ GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
