From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from palladium.cryos.net (palladium.cryos.net [80.68.90.219]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j57M9vEh031891 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:09:57 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by palladium.cryos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC72C5D935 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:30:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from palladium.cryos.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (palladium [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 14239-02-2 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:30:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from linux.cryos.net (linux.cryos.net [217.155.144.218]) (using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by palladium.cryos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941E35C209 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:30:32 +0100 (BST) From: "Marcus D. Hanwell" Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:11:31 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <20050606222623.GI9084@kaf.zko.hp.com> <20050607214457.GH19249@kaf.zko.hp.com> <1118181395.19657.23.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal> In-Reply-To: <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; boundary="nextPart2415859.xDxcKVnAr8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200506072311.35555.cryos@gentoo.org> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at palladium.cryos.net X-Archives-Salt: c4a6e3c1-26e0-4576-bc0a-21b71c464f6f X-Archives-Hash: dcfc7aee7d6ab5bf3782c79686269a36 --nextPart2415859.xDxcKVnAr8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 07 June 2005 22:56, Olivier Crete wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-06 at 17:44 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: > > Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT] > > > > > I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of > > > maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the > > > policy of if one arch stabilises then we can assume that is the > > > maintainer arch. > > > > Whoa, careful there. It's not a policy and it's not even > > a recommendation. I believe there are arch teams that will > > automatically stable a package after it has been ~arch for a period of > > time. They will break your assumption. > > This would be very evil. Are you sure its not a policy? 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.. This is almost as evil as keywording on > architectures on which you can't test.. > I have always managed to spot (I think) the ones that looked like they skip= ped=20 ahead of the maintainer, but it is another reason why having a maintainer=20 arch set would be nice. I thought it was policy/a suggestion, or at least=20 polite and so I always try to check with the maintainer if a package isn't= =20 stable and we need it for some reason. It would be nice to receive clarification on this issue, as there are times= =20 when new packages fix issues the maintainer is not aware of or does not=20 encounter on his/her arch. I think every maintainer I have talked to has be= en=20 helpful and we sorted it out between ourselves. Thanks, Marcus =2D-=20 Gentoo Linux Developer Scientific Applications | AMD64 | KDE | net-proxy --nextPart2415859.xDxcKVnAr8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCphuXzgRsaX1BF70RAi7jAJ9pt/J/3f7BEJnuJcyCLqlWKvcBDACgnWre /LUAPdL8jBIOt4FSQga9pn4= =9jxq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2415859.xDxcKVnAr8-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list