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 1EChWT-0001Sl-DY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:46:17 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86HfxkW014452; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:41:59 GMT Received: from smtp50.wxs.nl (smtp50.wxs.nl [195.121.6.34]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86HeAQa032150 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:40:10 GMT Received: from pavlvs2.devrieze.net ([84.87.243.3]) by smtp50.wxs.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j86HhVQh010643 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:43:31 +0200 Received: from hex.local.devrieze.net (hex.local.devrieze.net [192.168.1.7]) by pavlvs2.devrieze.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253A61002F for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:43:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:43:24 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <431B5D0B.4000808@gentoo.org> <1126016886.19807.109.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> In-Reply-To: <1126016886.19807.109.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> X-Face: #Lb+'V@sGJ;ptgo5}V"W+5OCoo{LZv;bh,s,`WKLi/J)ed1_$0;6X<=?utf-8?q?700LVV/=3BLqPhiDP=5E=0A=09=27f=5Dfnv?=@%6M8\'HR1t=aFx;ePfp{ZQoBe+e)JOQ8T5*(_;mHY+cltLGq<;@$Y,=?utf-8?q?O=5C=24=0A=09Tm=23G6M?=,g![Q62J{na*S9d;R[^8pc%u\aiLqU@`kJtYl"^6pxdW 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="nextPart1206510.T64FR32PRi"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509061943.31507.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 9fa533ad-81a2-42b6-8e2a-a9c3ea6ed368 X-Archives-Hash: f2c627a791881c71ad999e57cd5c5c92 --nextPart1206510.T64FR32PRi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 06 September 2005 16:28, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > I still think that the concept of a "maintainer arch" is completely > broken anyway. I like the idea of adding something like a "maint" > KEYWORD, or something similar to mark that the ebuild is considered > "stable" material by the maintainer. We can't rely on the maintainer > using *any* arch as their main architecture. Take myself, as an > example. The architecture I use when doing maintenance and adding new > packages is just whatever machine I happen to be using. It could be > x86, amd64, ppc, hppa, sparc, or mips, and there's no rhyme nor reason > to which I am using at any point in time. This is becoming a more > common occurrence that our developers have machines across many > architectures. Personally, I don't think this should be an added > KEYWORD, so much as a variable within the ebuild. I'd hate to start > seeing users filing bugs using "maint" as their "arch" or adding maint > to their USE flags. Just remember that if it is possible, somebody will > do it... ;] I think those silly users could be handled similarly as those who use=20 ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=3D"*" or similar. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --nextPart1206510.T64FR32PRi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDHdVDbKx5DBjWFdsRAiTuAJ9QmSnBuInC1R5bfoqCmhjbs3NZ1QCgtu5O Odw7L9JGRiYboGhULxZbOvE= =uoub -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1206510.T64FR32PRi-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list