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 1ECgq3-0001q5-Vi for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:02:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86GwQ7A010808; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:58:26 GMT Received: from asia.telenet-ops.be (asia.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.74]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86Gucuf027914 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:56:38 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 8595D38133 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:59:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fuji.siphos.be (dD5E06C7D.access.telenet.be [213.224.108.125]) by asia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3933803E for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:59:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by fuji.siphos.be (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 44E86234123; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:22:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:22:09 +0200 From: Sven Vermeulen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep Message-ID: <20050906152209.GA9825@gentoo.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> <20050904205307.GG23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125869984.11364.143.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="Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1125869984.11364.143.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: c6e5d0b0-6fc8-4d94-aa9d-56ec07e9a2a7 X-Archives-Hash: 3c699a8d585f3a7e72999df4ca973de6 --Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:39:44PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: > At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package > stable is to mark it stable on a "real" arch. Creating the "maintainer" > arch solves this very problem. Yes, but please don't call it the "maintainer" arch. This will confuse our users and it'll be quite difficult to document. I would rather vote for a MAINTENANCE keyword, like the following example: MAINTENANCE=3D"~x86" # Maintainer uses x86, package not deemed stable This provides two (wanted) inputs: stability and maintenance architecture. And it keeps backwards compatibility. Wkr, Sven Vermeulen --=20 Documentation project leader - Gentoo Foundation Trustee The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>> --Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDHbQhED0QGEyH9xgRAhqjAJ4j4on5z5CZM/2d8S1ONe+4kMqXbwCfdDY/ 7LkKcibH6GAYbpGcx7LiUOU= =tbEX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list