From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18257 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2004 06:21:50 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Aug 2004 06:21:50 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C0Ddm-0000f4-KG for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:21:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 17604 invoked by uid 89); 26 Aug 2004 06:21:26 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 15598 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2004 06:21:26 +0000 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20040825232048.3eca43f3@voyager.weeve.org> References: <1093441861.31835.9.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20040825212237.525af76a@voyager.weeve.org> <1093495787.9888.14.camel@localhost> <20040825232048.3eca43f3@voyager.weeve.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-l8mnBERr07TjsU696geQ" Message-Id: <1093501150.9888.19.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:19:10 -0500 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.43 X-Apparently-From: ERR_USER_NULL X-AOL-IP: 64.12.118.81 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS X-Archives-Salt: f42144e1-80aa-43bd-8e22-69f9e866204d X-Archives-Hash: 0e695792496e5a07b996f4d96284b707 --=-l8mnBERr07TjsU696geQ Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 00:20, Jason Wever wrote: > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:49:47 -0500 > Donnie Berkholz wrote: >=20 > > I also would hesitate to auto-~arch fairly critical packages, such as X > > or anything in system. >=20 > For larger || more troublesome || tool-chain type packages, we've > historically worked with the package maintainers in keywording new > versions to help with this. In cases like this that is > acceptable/agreeable. This might be a fine print item for that portion o= f > the handbook. >=20 > Personally, I would rather run into a package breaking in a revbump than > have it be missing keywords and not notified that it was behind. I'm sorry, I took it as a given that the archs would be notified in this case. I guess I shouldn't have. =3D) --=20 Donnie Berkholz Gentoo Linux --=-l8mnBERr07TjsU696geQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBLYDeXVaO67S1rtsRAodvAJ9ZD00001MBeXNObzLAJohKZOnGOQCeLmp+ hyVvAjDbdClcORSffMyLrek= =Up0P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-l8mnBERr07TjsU696geQ--