-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >>On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote: >> >>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> >>>>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". >>> >>>It's a bit of both. When you put a package into ~arch, it's in >>>"testing", so that says it needs further "testing" since there still >>>could be a not yet discovered bug, right? >> >>Testing of the ebuild rather than of the package, though. This is the >>point where people sometimes get confused. > > > That'd be me then :) > > So we're talking about correctness of ebuilds (correct dependencies, > use flag logic etc) and not whether the package actually works in depth. > The latter is what caused me to suggest drawing together a large team of > user-testers managed by arch-team devs. Correctness of ebuilds takes > us back to a dev role and the ebuild quiz, since it's necessary to > understand ebuilds to criticise them. >
After a rather heated discussion a while back, I came up with this definition: - -arch :: the end-user software is/might be flakey ~arch :: the ebuild is/might be flakey but the software is good arch :: its all good :) Nathan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDHGCN2QTTR4CNEQARAiVdAJ9wVLt5CPyW//qxmuSC3GlZSOaI+QCeLqEl 78TX1Xtvbx7E4lBEdwnxMus= =T6ZT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
