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 1EDuOj-0002MN-4U for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:43:17 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8A1cfAh025021; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:38:41 GMT Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [216.148.227.117]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8A1axx9015932 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:37:00 GMT Received: from enterprise.weeve.org (c-67-176-51-14.hsd1.co.comcast.net[67.176.51.14]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2005091001405201300ppjp8e>; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:40:52 +0000 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:40:48 -0600 From: Jason Wever To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP: Standardizing "arch" keywording across all archs Message-ID: <20050909194048.393b81b3@enterprise.weeve.org> In-Reply-To: <20050909171840.GR24542@kfk4ever.com> References: <20050909031519.GA31111@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <20050909171840.GR24542@kfk4ever.com> Organization: Gentoo Linux X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.0.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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=Signature_Fri__9_Sep_2005_19_40_48_-0600_jm3oLB8j6i9_a0wx; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 X-Archives-Salt: 2ba38f17-d015-42b6-aa1d-baf6fe3b3153 X-Archives-Hash: b7fa066720f2dedaad8cdeb8e44a8409 --Signature_Fri__9_Sep_2005_19_40_48_-0600_jm3oLB8j6i9_a0wx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:18:41 +0200 Maurice van der Pot wrote: > What's the definition of a "non-arch dev"? Is it a dev not in an arch > team? That would be my understanding. =20 > And the final paragraph: > "Ciaranm and weeve have noted that it is occasionally necessary for > arch teams to override a package maintainer when it comes to stabling > a package. Stuart has asserted that in those cases the arch team > should be willing to take on the support burden for that package." >=20 > Overriding here means stabling before the maintainer does it, not > keeping it in unstable while the maintainer wants to mark it stable, > right? Mostly us needing to stabilize sooner, but in some cases the opposite is true as well (for instance cases where it works for some but not others). Cheers, --=20 Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead --Signature_Fri__9_Sep_2005_19_40_48_-0600_jm3oLB8j6i9_a0wx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIjmidKvgdVioq28RAgx5AKCXT1CoTc6RzSkCioC7+h6zSZNrkgCfbWJt V6CvMAj/ni1bZfOsjr7PkWM= =Cgkv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature_Fri__9_Sep_2005_19_40_48_-0600_jm3oLB8j6i9_a0wx-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list