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 1ECjC2-00021M-OA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:33:19 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86JTGbQ000532; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:29:16 GMT Received: from smtp05.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (smtp.nuvox.net [64.89.70.9]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86JR75N013361 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:27:07 GMT Received: from cgianelloni.nuvox.net (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) by smtp05.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j86JWGvY007105 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:32:16 -0400 Received: by cgianelloni.nuvox.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:29:36 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050906152209.GA9825@gentoo.org> References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125863332.11366.89.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904210535.24ab8a39@snowdrop.home> <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904205307.GG23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125869984.11364.143.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050906152209.GA9825@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-4Bim70QdRYDQR2T8YmpD" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:29:36 -0400 Message-Id: <1126034976.10430.3.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> 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 2.2.3 X-Archives-Salt: 5d9bcbad-b1ce-4453-8dce-7014e961257e X-Archives-Hash: 518e870742da58387469452775bfbae9 --=-4Bim70QdRYDQR2T8YmpD Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 17:22 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:39:44PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: > > At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package > > stable is to mark it stable on a "real" arch. Creating the "maintainer= " > > arch solves this very problem. >=20 > Yes, but please don't call it the "maintainer" arch. This will confuse ou= r > users and it'll be quite difficult to document. I would rather vote for a > MAINTENANCE keyword, like the following example: >=20 > MAINTENANCE=3D"~x86" # Maintainer uses x86, package not deemed stable >=20 > This provides two (wanted) inputs: stability and maintenance architecture= . You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me. Like I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea of *any* architecture being my "primary" one just doesn't really fit. There's also the simple fact that it doesn't matter *at all* what the maintainer runs it on, only whether or not (s)he considers it stable. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux --=-4Bim70QdRYDQR2T8YmpD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDHe4gkT4lNIS36YERAmUdAJ0Qr372bCI3glKUgLJ7fLQCJ3XL2ACgvAP1 r6ppcg9begDfLsUmW1VkWOg= =RZRZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-4Bim70QdRYDQR2T8YmpD-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list