From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j57MIRLZ018811 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:18:28 GMT Received: from agriffis by smtp.gentoo.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DfmPT-0003w1-MA for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:18:59 +0000 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:18:49 -0400 X-OfflineIMAP-2001053436-64676f73656e64-494e424f582e4f7574626f78: 1118182750-0411242015735-v4.0.8 From: Aron Griffis To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering Message-ID: <20050607221849.GI19249@kaf.zko.hp.com> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20050606222623.GI9084@kaf.zko.hp.com> <200506072232.36536.cryos@gentoo.org> <20050607214457.GH19249@kaf.zko.hp.com> <1118181395.19657.23.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3VRmKSg17yJg2MZg" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1118181395.19657.23.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: f7973443-8646-45f8-a647-0905a7bb98ef X-Archives-Hash: fab3d1759db3db805b8af45c2864d7f4 --3VRmKSg17yJg2MZg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Olivier Crete wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:56:35PM EDT] > Are you sure its not a policy?=20 Fairly certain. It's been discussed around in circles in the past. > Because it should be and it has been > discussed before. Arch teams should NOT get ahead of the maintainer > without his permission... or if they really really know what they > are doing. Maintainers normally know their package/ebuilds and often > have very good reasons to keep a package ~arch for more than 30 > days.. Ciaran would have something to say about this, along the lines of some packages sitting idle in ~arch state because the maintainer isn't really paying attention. In that case, who can really blame an arch team for moving ahead on their own? Your statements make a lot of sense, and yes, it's how one would assume things work. But perspective can change when you're working on an architecture and losing patience with package maintainers. In practice, arch maintainers gradually learn what packages are well-maintained and what packages they stabilize without prior maintainer approval. A good example is foser's shepherding of gnome... in general the arches wait for his lead before stabilizing. Regards, Aron -- Aron Griffis Gentoo Linux Developer --3VRmKSg17yJg2MZg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCph1JJrHF4yAQTrARAjg6AJ0cU8HaevtyvDuUJnf5FZIdYSQA8QCguJV7 qqux9hPdal88ieRNtcNVIfA= =l+le -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3VRmKSg17yJg2MZg-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list