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 1EC5cK-0006ww-Oj for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 01:17:49 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j851DerO014990; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:13:40 GMT Received: from ms-smtp-02-eri0.texas.rr.com (ms-smtp-02.texas.rr.com [24.93.47.41]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j851AhWp030188 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:10:44 GMT Received: from localhost64.wan (cpe-66-25-88-87.satx.res.rr.com [66.25.88.87]) by ms-smtp-02-eri0.texas.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id j851Die1017134 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:13:45 -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 20:12:33 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <20050904215931.53b9db51@snowdrop.home> <1125870764.11364.152.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> In-Reply-To: <1125870764.11364.152.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> 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="nextPart2892141.nR1q1YvYD7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509042012.38859.morfic@gentoo.org> X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Archives-Salt: 85c5889a-6297-4c3c-8830-2cbbdedbac8d X-Archives-Hash: e04d3cc62d0fb165f8c7dab5018563f6 --nextPart2892141.nR1q1YvYD7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 04 September 2005 04:52 pm, Stuart Herbert wrote: > On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > 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". > > Agreed, but we both know that it's just not how many devs work atm. > Perhaps that is a problem that also needs to be solved? > > There's also the issue that many users are happy running ~arch packages, > but are reluctant to test masked packages (making it difficult to get > enough feedback to move the package to ~arch anyway). This is a bit of > a chicken and egg situation - one that the maintainer arch may provide a > new solution to. sounds like you suggest to trick ~arch users into testing "unripe"=20 ebuilds/bumps/versions by sending it into ~arch to get the testing done whi= le=20 someone in a chroot would be much better equipped for doing the testing wit= h? > > Best regards, > Stu --nextPart2892141.nR1q1YvYD7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDG5uG/aM9DdBw91cRArkQAJ9PLAZrFJuh80Hpr9DID0M3QN8oAQCgxmD7 U2ydZyqq52+B6/lrewveHwc= =yCNp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2892141.nR1q1YvYD7-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list