From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27600 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2004 05:20:59 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Aug 2004 05:20:59 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C0Ch1-0004xV-As for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 05:20:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 16467 invoked by uid 89); 26 Aug 2004 05:20:58 +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 685 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2004 05:20:58 +0000 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:20:48 -0600 From: Jason Wever To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20040825232048.3eca43f3@voyager.weeve.org> In-Reply-To: <1093495787.9888.14.camel@localhost> References: <1093441861.31835.9.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20040825212237.525af76a@voyager.weeve.org> <1093495787.9888.14.camel@localhost> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12a (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__25_Aug_2004_23_20_48_-0600_x6JFtZAZSXcPj9jQ" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild bumping policy wrt KEYWORDS X-Archives-Salt: 587c2730-7d5b-4107-9e58-f7b0c36015af X-Archives-Hash: 7ba43bb2c4724a52452dc5e8f0dd334a --Signature=_Wed__25_Aug_2004_23_20_48_-0600_x6JFtZAZSXcPj9jQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:49:47 -0500 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > I also would hesitate to auto-~arch fairly critical packages, such as X > or anything in system. For larger || more troublesome || tool-chain type packages, we've historically worked with the package maintainers in keywording new versions to help with this. In cases like this that is acceptable/agreeable. This might be a fine print item for that portion of the handbook. Personally, I would rather run into a package breaking in a revbump than have it be missing keywords and not notified that it was behind. While yes this stinks from a QA perspective, it also gets the problem addressed and resolved quicker (usually) than running into it later on down the road. It's also a lot easier wrt the overhead the package maintainers, arch maintainers and infrastructure maintainers have to go through to accomidate extra emails, bugs, etc if test requests had to be issued each time a package got rev or version bumped in the portage tree. Granted that's just my preference, but I've got my flame retardant underoos on so fire away ;) -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead --Signature=_Wed__25_Aug_2004_23_20_48_-0600_x6JFtZAZSXcPj9jQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBLXMydKvgdVioq28RArg+AJsEUpt7duzT3bKcyW9eava7ppiDPQCgmk1X Ln0qsCmQT8jxCw3+W/1RuSA= =3WuO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__25_Aug_2004_23_20_48_-0600_x6JFtZAZSXcPj9jQ--