From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EC18O-0001IZ-PW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:30:37 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j84KQUeq006421; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:26:30 GMT Received: from myrddraal.demon.co.uk (myrddraal.demon.co.uk [62.49.28.63]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j84KNlP0001344 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:23:48 GMT Received: from mogheiden.gnqs.org (mogheiden [192.168.0.20]) by myrddraal.demon.co.uk (8.13.3/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j84KUEiU010614 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:30:14 +0100 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep From: Stuart Herbert To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050904210535.24ab8a39@snowdrop.home> References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125863332.11366.89.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904210535.24ab8a39@snowdrop.home> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-7GO3El6PbSOfn58YLe7G" Organization: Gentoo Linux Project Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:26:37 +0100 Message-Id: <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> 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 2.2.1.1 X-Archives-Salt: d0782a6e-8c6a-4144-94a5-42570df76a94 X-Archives-Hash: 97e24b4fa59f46ec0065c39fa9c0d133 --=-7GO3El6PbSOfn58YLe7G Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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.=20 Workable for the vast majority of packages in the tree I expect. > Arch teams need to be allowed to override maintainers where > appropriate,=20 Why not talk to the package maintainers instead, and convince them that you need a different version marking "maint" instead? Why "override" (which, tbh, smacks of "we arch teams know best, life would be better without package maintainers") when you could work with people instead? You're *not* in competition with package maintainers. We're all supposed to be working towards the same thing :) 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 know better than package maintainers? If this isn't confined - if arch maintainers are allowed to override package maintainers wherever they want to - then arch teams need to take on the support burden. Fair's fair - if it's the arch team creating the support, it's only fair that they support users in these cases. It's completely unfair - and unrealistic - to expect a package maintainer to support a package he/she thinks isn't fit to be stable on an arch that he/she probably doesn't use anyway. In such a conflict of egos, the real losers remain our users. > And "maint" as a name? Yick. "maintainer" or "owner" maybe. It's just a word. Provided the concept is agreed on, the word isn't the most important thing in the world. Best regards, Stu --=20 Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/ GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint =3D 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C -- --=-7GO3El6PbSOfn58YLe7G Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDG1h9DC+AuvmvxXwRAtC0AJ4qwhHywQv9wZ3E/5IW/UMSJtWDuwCgshRV GRMOc/IgRVHxhUIHdrI/vNc= =hiET -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-7GO3El6PbSOfn58YLe7G-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list