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 1EGNse-0003mh-Fn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:36:24 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8GLUWkV025596; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:30:32 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 j8GLSnLm031416 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:28:49 GMT Received: from 82-41-57-20.cable.ubr08.edin.blueyonder.co.uk ([82.41.57.20] helo=snowdrop.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EGNqI-0004gk-69 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:33:58 +0000 Received: from localhost.home ([127.0.0.1] helo=snowdrop.home) by snowdrop.home with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EGNqt-0008T7-PH for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:34:35 +0100 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:34:33 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Message-ID: <20050916223433.250ef25c@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <200509162323.40674.carlo@gentoo.org> References: <20050915205149.GB22270@vino.zko.hp.com> <200509162217.26369.carlo@gentoo.org> <20050916213838.1e7f65d7@snowdrop.home> <200509162323.40674.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.13 (GTK+ 2.6.8; i686-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__16_Sep_2005_22_34_33_+0100_PurLyRj3ixEa=LHh"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 7bfb1938-8177-415e-9485-41bffff16588 X-Archives-Hash: 302b31d034740252bd260f957288ea7d --Signature_Fri__16_Sep_2005_22_34_33_+0100_PurLyRj3ixEa=LHh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:23:35 +0200 Carsten Lohrke wrote: | On Friday 16 September 2005 22:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > That's not my idea. That's policy. I just happen to a) have actually | > read what policy says and b) agree with it. |=20 | First: I know you're proposing this regularly, but please show me the | policy - I'm sure your interpretation doesn't match mine. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3D3&chap=3D1 > There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for > ebuilds. The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires testing. The use > of package.mask denotes that the application or library itself is > deemed unstable. | Second: a) and b) doesn't match what's going on with large parts of | the tree=20 Good time for package maintainers to start following policy properly, eh? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Signature_Fri__16_Sep_2005_22_34_33_+0100_PurLyRj3ixEa=LHh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDKzpr96zL6DUtXhERAjSbAKDN7IWlL8YmPJWHpkaM9g1p/3UzkACcDxyb Lghp7GF4obYyTy0r8/fhwRA= =STKs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature_Fri__16_Sep_2005_22_34_33_+0100_PurLyRj3ixEa=LHh-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list