From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17751 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2003 14:40:36 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (128.193.0.39) by eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 29 Dec 2003 14:40:36 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([128.193.0.34] helo=eagle.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AayZQ-0005xb-9S for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:40:36 +0000 Received: (qmail 23676 invoked by uid 50004); 29 Dec 2003 14:27:00 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 21553 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2003 14:27:00 +0000 From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:23:33 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <20031229040040.GC9146@tompayne.org> In-Reply-To: <20031229040040.GC9146@tompayne.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_wjD8/0z99AzA75s"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200312291523.44286.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,PGP_SIGNATURE_2, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_KMAIL autolearn=ham version=2.55-uvt6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55-uvt6 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please do not stabilize packages for arches you cannot test for X-Archives-Salt: cf299b83-7f5f-4822-bac0-3739b1970838 X-Archives-Hash: 365c83199eaaa2dd1d0a40483fdbe267 --Boundary-02=_wjD8/0z99AzA75s Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 29 December 2003 05:00, Tom Payne wrote: > I propose: > > An ebuild that is unlikely to cause problems can be MARKED stable on > relevant arches, even if the dev is unable to actually test it. > > An ebuild is only CONSIDERED stable on an arch if it, and all its > dependencies, are marked stable on that arch. > > New problems: > > Might result in broken software being installed. > As you might know we are trying to improve the quality of the tree. A polic= y=20 like this one is not beneficiarry to that. Further I have the strong feelin= g=20 that this is the kind of policy that will get blurry boundaries. In other=20 words I think it will not work. > Feedback please. I advocate this approach for 'minor' packages, i.e. > nothing fundamental to the working of the system. It's more suitable for > scripting language libraries and minor applications (e.g. obscure window > managers). A more appropriate option would be to allow users to test packages that hav= e=20 not been marked as broken on their arg and then have a policy that if at=20 least two users have reported a package as stable, and an arch dev can=20 compile it it will be marked testing, and stable if it has no problems with= in=20 a reasonable time period. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --Boundary-02=_wjD8/0z99AzA75s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/8DjwbKx5DBjWFdsRArmTAKDS/MsL6KmF9TdEPegeEhKWmgcpBwCfT8iP 97/N9CWRzIb/hf57FgXi5Qc= =P8pK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_wjD8/0z99AzA75s--