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 1EC5Z1-0001NB-94 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 01:14:24 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j851AIf5015439; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:10:18 GMT Received: from ms-smtp-01-eri0.texas.rr.com (ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com [24.93.47.40]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8517g9a015794 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:07:43 GMT Received: from localhost64.wan (cpe-66-25-88-87.satx.res.rr.com [66.25.88.87]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.texas.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id j851AhH9022672 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:10:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Daniel Goller To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:09:29 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904215931.53b9db51@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20050904215931.53b9db51@snowdrop.home> 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="nextPart11634336.JAI4C5FyOu"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509042009.37676.morfic@gentoo.org> X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Archives-Salt: dd1f9ea3-049b-4c2e-b5e9-2220b30dc712 X-Archives-Hash: 7663840eb48c7a80064b726290059e29 --nextPart11634336.JAI4C5FyOu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 04 September 2005 03:59 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:26:37 +0100 Stuart Herbert > > wrote: > | > Arch teams need to be allowed to override maintainers where > | > appropriate, > | > | Why not talk to the package maintainers instead, and convince them > | that you need a different version marking "maint" instead? Why > | "override" (which, tbh, smacks of "we arch teams know best, life would > | be better without package maintainers") when you could work with > | people instead? You're *not* in competition with package > | maintainers. We're all supposed to be working towards the same > | thing :) > > Sure, we do that anyway. However, sometimes package maintainers are > outright wrong. > agreed talk/communcation is fine, if the maintainer is only trying to flex= =20 muscles and does not have a good reason, the arch team ought to be able to = do=20 what is best for gentoo and not be shot down by a (hm) stubborn(?)=20 maintainer, if the maintaner could do that, the arch team would be quite=20 limited in its effectiveness > | I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their > | own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. > | Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform, > | when is there ever a need for arch maintainers to decide that they > | know better than package maintainers? > > Pretty regularly. A significant number of package maintainers have a > very shoddy attitude towards QA, and a significant number of upstreams > have no clue what portability is. > > | If this isn't confined - if arch maintainers are allowed to override > | package maintainers wherever they want to - then arch teams need to > | take on the support burden. Fair's fair - if it's the arch team > | creating the support, it's only fair that they support users in these > | cases. It's completely unfair - and unrealistic - to expect a > | package maintainer to support a package he/she thinks isn't fit to be > | stable on an arch that he/she probably doesn't use anyway. In such a > | conflict of egos, the real losers remain our users. > > If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of > package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more > testing", not "might work". --nextPart11634336.JAI4C5FyOu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDG5rR/aM9DdBw91cRAhMGAKDRMDnGigpEHhVBcOX+PWiJj5v5IACgv3AB ORMvhUzp4LSpi+8M05WjO9M= =jpHB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart11634336.JAI4C5FyOu-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list