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 <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; 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 <tester@gentoo.org>
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: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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