On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 20:47 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:35:31 -0700 Donnie Berkholz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | Chris Gianelloni wrote: > | > 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. > | > | There have been many cases where I've considered a package stable on > | one architecture but not on another. How would I indicate this? > > This would be one of the cases where a maintainer / stable keyword > would be inappropriate. I suspect there are a lot more of these than > some people think... >
We already have: arch - in theory stable ~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing -arch - do not work at all What about !arch or something (to connect with the one reply to the summary thread) to really indicate unstable on that arch? Should cover those things that sorda work on the arch, but you rather want developers or experienced users that can patch bugs to look at it ... Sure it will still leave some holes, but will be a bit more flexible than a single maintainer keyword. -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
