>>>>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their > own packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off > of the arch teams.
> Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down > anywhere? Sure it is. :) For amd64 it is documented in an e-mail to gentoo-core and a discussion in #gentoo-dev from 2007. I include both below. (kingtaco was the amd64 team lead at the time.) x86 has similar rules: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/89711 Ulrich | Message-ID: <473a496c.4020...@gentoo.org> | From: Mike Doty <kingt...@gentoo.org> | To: Gentoo Core <gentoo-c...@lists.gentoo.org> | CC: am...@gentoo.org | Subject: [gentoo-core] AMD64 keywords | Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:03:40 -0800 | | All- | | Due to my failure to keep the amd64 team on track, I must now ask for your | help. We have 101 keywording bugs and 16 Security bugs, found at [1] and [2]. | It is simply too much work for me to do without holding up the release even more. | | If you are the maintainer of a package that currently has open bugs for amd64 | stabilization and own amd64 hardware, please do your own testing and keyword | your packages. | | I apologize for every late bug due to the amd64 team slacking off. | | Mike Doty | | [1] - http://tinyurl.com/2uanmp | [2] - http://tinyurl.com/3e2z56 | -- | gentoo-c...@gentoo.org mailing list <ulm> !herd amd64 <jeeves> ulm: (amd64) angelos, beandog, cardoe, chutzpah, cryos, dang, diox, dmwaters, hparker, kingtaco, kugelfang, malc, metalgod, philantrop, rbu, sekretarz, tester, tomk, trapni, voxus, welp, wolf31o2 <ulm> ^^ping <kingtaco|work> yes? <ulm> kingtaco|work: I'm about to file a stablereq bug for about 70 packages in app-emacs <kingtaco|work> gah <ulm> kingtaco|work: just wanted to ask how we should handle it <kingtaco|work> well <kingtaco|work> do you run stable amd64? <ulm> kingtaco|work: not regularly, but opfer and me have machines available <ulm> kingtaco|work: in principle this stuff should be arch-independent anyway <kingtaco|work> ulm, for something like this, there are 2 paths. you can file the bugs & tracker like usual or, if you have a stable amd64 root using portage, I would allow you to keyword <kingtaco|work> I assume you're trying to make the snapshot? <ulm> kingtaco|work: at least for some of the packages it would be nice <ulm> it's mostly a matter to synchronise amd64 with x86 <kingtaco|work> ulm, they would probably be low on the priority list of stuff to stabalize, so it sounds like it would be better to have the emacs herd do the keywording <ulm> kingtaco|work: the emacs team would prefer this, too ;) <ulm> kingtaco|work: but i'm going to open a bug for it anyway <kingtaco|work> ulm, ok, our requirements are a stable root and portage as the pkg manager <kingtaco|work> and yes, a bug so we all know what's going on is good <phreak``> kingtaco|work: damn, I thought you accepted one of the alternatives * phreak`` runs <phreak``> better fast I take it <phreak``> :P <hparker> it's not like anyone uses emacs * hparker runs <kingtaco|work> phreak``, nope. I don't care if other devs use is for whatever, but for amd64 our package manager is portage <phreak``> hparker: if taco ain't nobody ;) <hparker> phreak``: I know ;) <kingtaco|work> and yes, I'm an emacs wh0re <phreak``> kingtaco|work: just messing with you :-) <ulm> kingtaco|work: in addition we have some 10 packages (in app-emacs, too) to be keyworded ~amd64. Same procedure for them, I assume? <kingtaco|work> ulm, jup <kingtaco|work> ulm, so long as it's not a system dep, I'm more than happy to let herds do the keywording
pgpvuOknypIgT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
