Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 12:25 -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 22:46 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
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 assume you're talking of the case where arch team and maintainer's arch are
the same. I think normally package maintainers can decide better whether their
package should go stable on their arch than an arch team, as they get all the
bugs for it. On the other hand, we can't define a "maintainer arch" in many
cases, so either we leave the authority to the arch team or we'll just have an
x86 arch team without the expected effects.
I still think that the concept of a "maintainer arch" is completely
broken anyway. I like the idea of adding something like a "maint"
KEYWORD, or something similar to mark that the ebuild is considered
"stable" material by the maintainer.
This keyword would be independent of any arch right?
Correct.
It would be a KEYWORD or some other variable that says "I'm the
maintainer, and I say it is ready to go stable" without relying on any
particular architecture to be an indicator of stability.
Perfect, i _highly_ agree with the idea then.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
