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 1ECNSy-0004q5-Gt for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:21:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j85KH4Wg025927; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:17:04 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 j85KEG6F021193 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 20:14:16 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 j85KL05J011341 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:21:00 +0100 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep From: Stuart Herbert To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050905203729.01e6b212@snowdrop.home> References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904215931.53b9db51@snowdrop.home> <200509042009.37676.morfic@gentoo.org> <1125948029.10669.35.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050905203729.01e6b212@snowdrop.home> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-hIJZNLL6FDhwxz/byL+Z" Organization: Gentoo Linux Project Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:16:37 +0100 Message-Id: <1125951397.10663.79.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: 9bd0c90a-7a8a-4417-a27c-5cf1d98b51d5 X-Archives-Hash: eb1c2f107c9b60417b6525de89ed11ab --=-hIJZNLL6FDhwxz/byL+Z Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 :) I'm asking that you assume any support burden that you create. It only seems fair. If you're in an arch team, the package maintainer doesn't agree that the package should be stable, and you're not willing to take on the support for that package either, don't stabilise it. We shouldn't stabilise packages where no-one's willing to support it. That's all I'm asking for, to go into the GLEP. It's no big deal. If the arch team believe that know better than the package maintainer, then they must know enough to be able to support it, no? ;-) 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 -- --=-hIJZNLL6FDhwxz/byL+Z 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) iD8DBQBDHKelDC+AuvmvxXwRAtkgAJ47tgruF1y7nufyLZdVmg+z2mrhagCfWVu+ F1le5e6qJVXVs60bLlT9LC4= =q1BK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-hIJZNLL6FDhwxz/byL+Z-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list