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 1EC1Wn-0000Ur-JN for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:55:50 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j84Kq5ij023797; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:52:05 GMT 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 j84Ko678022960 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:50:06 GMT Received: from adsl-70-241-64-171.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net ([70.241.64.171] helo=localhost) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EC1UB-0002Z3-0i for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:53:07 +0000 Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 15:53:07 -0500 From: Grant Goodyear To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep Message-ID: <20050904205307.GG23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125863332.11366.89.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904210535.24ab8a39@snowdrop.home> <1125865598.11360.122.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; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wj9ZLJVQDRFjGSdK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i X-Archives-Salt: 545d9a36-a2f9-4b7e-ae6f-227e1f7465a6 X-Archives-Hash: edfc44b209e14114a93b451418fcc374 --wj9ZLJVQDRFjGSdK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stuart Herbert wrote: [Sun Sep 04 2005, 03:26:37PM CDT] > 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? I'm still thinking about the concept of a "maint" option. This question I can answer, however. It's not unheard of for a package with a lot of dependencies to be marked stable when one of the dependencies has not yet been so marked. In that sort of tree-breaking case, the arch teams actually do know better, since they maintain ``arch`` systems (or chroots) for testing. > 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. I tend to think that's fair. At least in my view, the goal is not to minimize the importance of package maintainers, but simply to separate package maintainance from tree maintainance. -g2boojum- --=20 Grant Goodyear=09 Gentoo Developer g2boojum@gentoo.org http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 --wj9ZLJVQDRFjGSdK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDG16zptxxUuD2W3YRAsKOAJ9dRmrJrHqV1APduMn2wQkyD+wYJgCdFI5W abxtKEat+1INq6Gj2HpLnd8= =F7Fb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wj9ZLJVQDRFjGSdK-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list