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 1EGKpj-0001Sz-5k for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:21:11 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8GIEsfU006590; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:14:54 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 j8GID7ks003876 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:13:08 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EGKms-00035D-FN for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:18:14 +0000 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:18:19 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Message-ID: <20050916181819.GA17982@nightcrawler> References: <20050915205149.GB22270@vino.zko.hp.com> <1126821468.23324.84.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <200509151820.57057.vapier@gentoo.org> <200509161942.37010.pauldv@gentoo.org> <1126894448.5006.93.camel@lycan.lan> 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="jRHKVT23PllUwdXP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1126894448.5006.93.camel@lycan.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: f26e54db-fa74-4a4a-932c-a5f00ac4f27f X-Archives-Hash: 378e90d1d2d8e51fccb169e01558d808 --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:14:08PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 19:42 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > On Friday 16 September 2005 00:20, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > actually this is came up in the meeting as something we would like to= see > > > spelled out explicitly ... either as a GLEP itself or as a policy upd= ate to > > > current stabilization practices > > > > > > the GLEP was approved on the grounds that we need an x86 team and tha= t it > > > needs to be treated as any other arch ... arch team interaction with > > > maintainers should be spelled out clearly rather than part of a single > > > sentence '... or make individual arrangements with the x86 arch team.' > >=20 > > Ok, I do think that we will need a way for the maintainer to indicate t= hat the=20 > > package is stable. I'd be happy to leave stabilizing out of my hands, b= ut I=20 > > wouldn't want my packages to be stabilized before I deem it stable. > >=20 >=20 > File a bug if the arches (or main ones at least) haven't picked it up > yet? Will make the problem of missing some or other keyword minimal > (especially for some obscure package not often used). I would prefer this route, personally. Jamming a maint keyword into the ebuild is kind of ugly from where I=20 sit :) ~harring --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDKwxrvdBxRoA3VU0RAs0TAKCH3+XlhVJlaa14o0K69U9jUh6b8wCgvkOM UrDHkchJf6dVnSLcQaoOM2U= =ea5R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list