On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 17:22 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:39:44PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, but please don't call it the "maintainer" arch. This will confuse our > users and it'll be quite difficult to document. I would rather vote for a > MAINTENANCE keyword, like the following example: > > MAINTENANCE="~x86" # Maintainer uses x86, package not deemed stable > > This provides two (wanted) inputs: stability and maintenance architecture.
You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me. Like I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea of *any* architecture being my "primary" one just doesn't really fit. There's also the simple fact that it doesn't matter *at all* what the maintainer runs it on, only whether or not (s)he considers it stable. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
