From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.max-t.com (h216-18-124-229.gtcust.grouptelecom.net [216.18.124.229]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j57Lu5Td010257 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 21:56:05 GMT Received: from cocagne.max-t.internal ([192.168.1.124]) by mail.max-t.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1Dfm3o-000798-3K for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:56:37 -0400 From: Olivier Crete To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050607214457.GH19249@kaf.zko.hp.com> References: <20050606222623.GI9084@kaf.zko.hp.com> <200506072232.36536.cryos@gentoo.org> <20050607214457.GH19249@kaf.zko.hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Organization: Gentoo Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:56:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1118181395.19657.23.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.1.124 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tester@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on mx.max-t.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.3 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1+cvs (built Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:35:17 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.max-t.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id j57Lu5Td010257 X-Archives-Salt: 25e64f57-1daa-4cfa-832a-3cb5d6ddad9c X-Archives-Hash: 346a7338ad6fe19f59c6278b3bd22796 On Tue, 2005-07-06 at 17:44 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: > Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT] > > I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of > > maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the > > policy of if one arch stabilises then we can assume that is the > > maintainer arch. > > Whoa, careful there. It's not a policy and it's not even > a recommendation. I believe there are arch teams that will > automatically stable a package after it has been ~arch for a period of > time. They will break your assumption. This would be very evil. Are you sure its not a policy? Because it should be and it has been discussed before. Arch teams should NOT get ahead of the maintainer without his permission... or if they really really know what they are doing. Maintainers normally know their package/ebuilds and often have very good reasons to keep a package ~arch for more than 30 days.. This is almost as evil as keywording on architectures on which you can't test.. -- Olivier Crête tester@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer x86 Security Liaison -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list