From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nvn6O-0008EZ-21 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:40:08 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E6C3E083E; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com (mail-bw0-f219.google.com [209.85.218.219]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA3EE081A for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:39:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so503458bwz.26 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 00:39:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=DxdHt8NZvuoikq+4s5olO7zl9HSoc0ysNrZKUzpGvyo=; b=NxGPRs1+tUg0v6zubPbOt+oTuDgDXr3LSB5P9Aq5nZSyAy7sTPajPXToFwb/pC8uB8 wPZqe4+xEw1aHqv+InkIpfzQ5ayjeZ4bQwl1/1qtxyIylorgtxXHReBvutQMj/mleQ0t N156ckSa395HKGbzrotRVdqkRzRfftbgkXHLY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=qusCmwRKLrExEyUVAtkaLWooYzuQqsGMP1Ku9k0t7au0TIozRoC6+J0J/JLSVMvl8E /xF29b7h/j/N0bhqLCeGkSbT0P9AFxAdVl0lxOxSLpgdt8fIezlTe9cF3DrJqurJxoJg NWfr4E25lzL4YsC9suY48m9P2tWEIow8Fjkeg= Received: by 10.204.152.24 with SMTP id e24mr4174697bkw.186.1269761971546; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 00:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowmobile ([92.24.193.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a11sm25535127bkc.9.2010.03.28.00.39.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 28 Mar 2010 00:39:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 08:39:18 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reworking package stabilization policies Message-ID: <20100328083918.48f5835b@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: <201003280747.28790.reavertm@gmail.com> References: <20100327205841.GA12996@linux1> <201003280747.28790.reavertm@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.4 (GTK+ 2.18.5; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/TmwWrVuS0wfd.xl3RM8JOvM"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 975b91be-fa56-46f3-be74-274d91609029 X-Archives-Hash: ce9b9080e3b3c88f5caddf348461054f --Sig_/TmwWrVuS0wfd.xl3RM8JOvM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:47:27 +0200 Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > No, seriously - given the fact that some of my packages were even > stabilized without contacting me (app-misc/hal-cups-utils, > app-admin/system-config- printer-common) - I think it should be: Well you'd marked them "~arch", right? That means they're candidates to go stable. > * solely up to the package maintainers to stabilize application on > arches they're using or on any arch if package is arch-agnostic > (optionally, but preferably with some peer review from other project > members or arch team members). There are no arch agnostic packages. > It's really freaking silly to wait months for stabilization of some > random php/perl library that's known to work. How do you know it works if you don't test on the arch in question? --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/TmwWrVuS0wfd.xl3RM8JOvM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuvB6oACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEP7gCg0YUWAZWVvsZtzJbZl+TG4h8x AqoAoLWG3ZWW6b/fp8I06+NXL6sK+C8l =Qm8R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/TmwWrVuS0wfd.xl3RM8JOvM--