Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 08:46 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > If nobody on x86 is using a given package, is there a need to worry > > about marking it ~x86/x86? > > When I said 'All', I didn't mean to include stuff that's not in x86. > What I was trying to get at, was the idea that if the x86 arch te

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 00:03 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > a) Convenience. Testing. Some times we want to get user testing on a specific package or two, and it is easier to distribute it via the normal portage tree than not. Another reason for masking packages is for security reasons. This espe

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On 7/9/2005 3:10:12, Stuart Longland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 9:44:41 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > | On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > | > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quin

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 9:44:41 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > | > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" > | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > wrote: > | > | 3) All packages need to

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Dave Shanker wrote: On 9/6/05, *Martin Schlemmer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: arch - in theory stable ~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing -arch - do not work at all Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage? Wha

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:51:51 -0400 Dave Shanker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage? a) Convenience. b) Sadly, unlike some other distributions we don't refuse to package things which won't work on all our tier one archs. -- Ciaran McC

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On 9/6/05, Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: arch  - in theory stable~arch - in theory should work, but needs testing-arch - do not work at all Just out of curiosity, why are there know broken packages in portage? Wouldn't -arch packages best be handled outside of the official portage t

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:41:35 -0400 warnera6 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Speaking of flexabilty, are there tools out there to perform look-ups | into p.masks to figure out why things are masked? emerge -pv emerge -pv would be a cludge for what many are after. If I wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:41:35 -0400 warnera6 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Speaking of flexabilty, are there tools out there to perform look-ups | into p.masks to figure out why things are masked? emerge -pv -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail:

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:46:40 -0400 "Stephen P. Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | This is true, however it requires users to possibly make a gazillion | entries in their /etc/portage/package.unmask if they want to use a | lot of what are considered truly unstable packages. There are dozens of s

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 22:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:43 +0200 Martin Schlemmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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 reall

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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 th

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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 ver

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 19:11, Joshua Baergen wrote: > Sven Vermeulen wrote: > > MAINTENANCE="~x86" # Maintainer uses x86, package not deemed stable > > I would even suggest not indicating maintainer arch at all. If ATs are > going to be responsible for keywording we should blackbox the pro

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 16:28, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > 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 mai

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Sven Vermeulen wrote: MAINTENANCE="~x86" # Maintainer uses x86, package not deemed stable I would even suggest not indicating maintainer arch at all. If ATs are going to be responsible for keywording we should blackbox the process to ward off assumptions and laziness. Whether the mai

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:22:09 +0200 Sven Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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" a

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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,

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 22:42 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > | I'm asking that you assume any support burden that you create. It > > | only seems fair. > > > > Stabling a package which is not in packahe.mask is only a support > > burden if package maintainers are abusing

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:52:56 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I've put my point across, but you're determined not to address it | directly. I guess there's nothing else to say on this topic. Bah, I'm not changing the subject at all. It's the same issue. Marking something as stabl

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 21:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Stabling a package which is not in packahe.mask is only a support > burden if package maintainers are abusing ~arch. > > If you don't agree that it should be stable, don't move it out out of > package.mask. ~arch is for stable candidates,

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | I'm asking that you assume any support burden that you create. It | only seems fair. Stabling a package which is not in packahe.mask is only a support burden if package maintainers are abusing ~arch. I absolutely agree with you, the only point is: People are abusing

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:16:37 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 20:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > If the package maintainer doesn't think their package is ready, it | > should be in package.mask. | | I'm not arguing against that. I agree with it. Please

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 20:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > If the package maintainer doesn't think their package is ready, it > should be in package.mask. I'm not arguing against that. I agree with it. Please stop trying to hijack this and divert attention away from my point. I'm asking nicely

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 20:12 -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: > sounds like you suggest to trick ~arch users into testing "unripe" > ebuilds/bumps/versions by sending it into ~arch to get the testing done while > someone in a chroot would be much better equipped for doing the testing with? No. You'

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:20:28 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Still, it'd only be fair for the arch team to assume the support | burden for the package version if they do this w/out the support of | the package maintainer. If the package maintainer doesn't think their package is r

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 20:09 -0500, Daniel Goller wrote: > agreed talk/communcation is fine, if the maintainer is only trying to flex > muscles and does not have a good reason, the arch team ought to be able to do > what is best for gentoo and not be shot down by a (hm) stubborn(?) > maintainer,

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 17:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Doesn't solve the coordination problem. Agreed. If there's going to be an x86 team, it needs to be a full arch team, and not some /dev/null that pretends to be one. Best regards, Stu -- Stuart Herbert

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Mike Doty wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luis F. Araujo wrote: | Kevin F. Quinn wrote: | |> On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: |> |> |>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |>> wrote: |>> | 3) All packages ne

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luis F. Araujo wrote: | Kevin F. Quinn wrote: | |> On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: |> |> |>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |>> wrote: |>> | 3) All packages need to be assigned an

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Kevin F. Quinn wrote: On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | 3) All packages need to be assigned an x86 arch team member |responsible. Why? Because if only the x86 arch team ca

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:41:54 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Testing of the ebuild rather than of the package, though. This is the | point where people sometimes get confused. You can't consider an ebuild stable unless the code it installs is also reasonably stable. -- Ciaran McCr

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 9:44:41 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: | > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > wrote: | > | 3) All packages need to be assigned an x86 arch team member |

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:21:03 +0100 Tom Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Maybe I'm seeing this all wrong, but the fact is, the number of | packages that need x86 arch team lovin' are pretty small, despite the | number of overall keyworded packages being large. I don't think the | x86 arch team nee

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

-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 pac

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Martin wrote: > I'm not sure I like this. I think it would be too slow. I'd rather have > a concept of maintainer arch (the reason I still like the old keyword > ordering, because there was at least *some* idea of maintainer arch. In > fact, I used

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > Well, it strikes me that most if not all of the organisational questions > are not relevant to a tester; the only technical question that is > relevant is 9 (keyword marking), and even that would be reworded for the > tester per

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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"

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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" sinc

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Danny van Dyk wrote: Paul de Vrieze schrieb: | I agree with this. It should also be a simple, backwards compatible | solution. Just don't call it maintainer, but maint or something like | that ;-) In case this should really be done, please call it 'stable'... so we get ~stable? ;) -- Simon Ste

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Monday 05 September 2005 05:11, Stuart Herbert wrote: > I'd be more worried about the impact on users. From a user's point of > view, x86 is a fast-moving arch, where you can normally find an up to > date package, and where most of the major packages are actively and well > maintained by the pa

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul de Vrieze schrieb: | I agree with this. It should also be a simple, backwards compatible | solution. Just don't call it maintainer, but maint or something like | that ;-) In case this should really be done, please call it 'stable'... Danny - --

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:12:54AM +0200, "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We seem to be heading towards a situation where the x86 arch > team do all marking of stuff stable on x86. This I like. > Some observations - these may be phrased in the affirmative > but please take them as o

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sunday 04 September 2005 23:39, Stuart Herbert wrote: > Hi Grant, > > On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > I'm still thinking about the concept of a "maint" option. This > > question I can answer, however. It's not unheard of for a package > > with a lot of dependencies

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 23:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:43:20 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | > The only reason certain arch teams are considered a bottleneck is > | > because they do real testing. As opposed to x86 or ppc, where > | > packages which

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sunday 04 September 2005 04:52 pm, Stuart Herbert wrote: > On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:59 +0100, 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". > > Agreed, bu

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sunday 04 September 2005 03:59 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:26:37 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | > Arch teams need to be allowed to override maintainers where > | > appropriate, > | > | Why not talk to the package maintainers instead, and convince

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 01:12 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > 6) I notice the amd64 team requre their arch testers to >take the ebuild quiz; I think this is a bit harsh, as >arch testers are regular users without commit access to >CVS etc. A simpler quiz targetted at ensuring the arch >

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | 3) All packages need to be assigned an x86 arch team member |responsible. Why? | 6) I notice the amd64 team requre their arch testers to |take the ebuild quiz; I think this is a bit harsh, as |arch testers

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

We seem to be heading towards a situation where the x86 arch team do all marking of stuff stable on x86. This I like. Some observations - these may be phrased in the affirmative but please take them as observations/suggestions :) 1) The x86 arch team will need to be large(ish) to keep pace. He

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:43:20 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:57 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > Yeah, foser's on holiday. Good time to push the GLEP through. | | How typical of you to try and drag this discussion down into something | personal :( If yo

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:54:02 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe the answer is to have separate trees for arches and general > packages then? That would be one solution. > > (Although not one that I'd personally prefer. I'd rather the package > maintainers learned to work wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 15:45 -0600, Jason Wever wrote: > This is the current policy, though it gets violated quite often. Maybe the answer is to have separate trees for arches and general packages then? That would be one solution. (Although not one that I'd personally prefer. I'd rather the pack

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:59 +0100, 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". Agreed, but we both know that it's just not how many devs work atm. Perhaps that

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:39:44 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but if package maintainers aren't allowed to mark packages as > stable on anything but the "maintainer arch" (unless they are also a > member of an arch team), this problem shouldn't happen. This is the current po

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sunday 04 September 2005 23:35, Jason Wever wrote: > For the most part, this makes sense,  However we do have times where a > particular arch team may need to stabilize a package sooner in the case > where earlier versions are broken. Why this remembers me xine-lib on sparc? :)) -- Diego "Flam

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:57 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Yeah, foser's on holiday. Good time to push the GLEP through. How typical of you to try and drag this discussion down into something personal :( If you keep feeling the need to do this, do everyone a favour and keep your mouth shut inste

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Hi Grant, On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > I'm still thinking about the concept of a "maint" option. This > question I can answer, however. It's not unheard of for a package with > a lot of dependencies to be marked stable when one of the dependencies > has not yet been

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:43:11 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that the arch teams shouldn't be marking packages stable in > advance of when the the maintainer thinks it's ready. At the same > time, it's the respective arch teams, as "owners" of their entire > stable tree,

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sunday 04 September 2005 22:53, Grant Goodyear wrote: > I tend to think that's fair.  At least in my view, the goal is not to > minimize the importance of package maintainers, but simply to separate > package maintainance from tree maintainance. That's right. I think this is good, as a maintaine

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 14:40 -0600, Joshua Baergen wrote: > A possible way to alleviate this is proactivity on the maintainer's > part. Our current rule for going testing->stable is 30 days. If we > could alert the arch teams x number of days in advance they could > test > it before the end of

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:53:07 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I'm still thinking about the concept of a "maint" option. This | question I can answer, however. It's not unheard of for a package | with a lot of dependencies to be marked stable when one of the | dependencies has not

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:26:37 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Arch teams need to be allowed to override maintainers where | > appropriate, | | Why not talk to the package maintainers instead, and convince them | that you need a different version marking "maint" instead? Why |

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:11:03 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Depends on how many refuse I guess ;-) There doesn't seem to be much | sign of any opposition to the concept so far. Yeah, foser's on holiday. Good time to push the GLEP through. | We have an elected council now; if t

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Stuart Herbert wrote: [Sun Sep 04 2005, 03:26:37PM CDT] > 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

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 kn

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Vapier wrote: [Sun Sep 04 2005, 01:00:41PM CDT] > this isnt quite true ... non-x86 archs usually take their queues for > when packages should be moved to stable from the maintainer of the > package Perfectly reasonable. > in other words, arch teams generally defer to maintainers (and rightly > so

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Stuart Herbert wrote: The introduction of the x86 arch team will, at some point, turn the x86 arch team into a bottleneck (just like all the other arch teams already are) A possible way to alleviate this is proactivity on the maintainer's part. Our current rule for going testing->stable is

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:05 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Workable for a certain category of packages so long as it's advisory > only. Workable for the vast majority of packages in the tree I expect. > Arch teams need to be allowed to override maintainers where > appropriate, Why not talk to

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 14:16 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > * Having bodies on [EMAIL PROTECTED] is just the starting point. The >more difficult part will be convincing people that it is in their >best interests to do things this way. Similarly, what do we do with >devs who refuse?

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:48:52 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Introduce a new arch keyword "maint", to turn the concept of the | "maintainer arch" from an intangible into something real. Package | maintainers can then mark packages "~maint" or "maint" as required, | and leave the

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Hi Grant, On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 09:37 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Dear all, > Here's a GLEP that I'm thinking about right now. It's not yet > official, since I'd like to get some feedback beforehand (which helps to > ensure that I'm not abusing my GLEP-editor powers). If you have > addition

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Sun Sep 04 2005, 01:41:41PM CDT] > On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 09:37:11 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | There will be a considerable one-time cost involved in establishing a > | robust x86 arch team. > > Justify this please. If there is a cost associated, the

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sunday 04 September 2005 10:37 am, Grant Goodyear wrote: > This policy for x86 is quite different from how every other arch marks > packages stable.  For the non-x86 archs, each arch has a specific "arch > team" which is responsible for moving packages from ``~arch`` to ``arch``. >  This approac

Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 09:37:11 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | There will be a considerable one-time cost involved in establishing a | robust x86 arch team. Justify this please. If there is a cost associated, the details of this cost should be provided. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gento