From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6476B138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:49:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95D45E0AE8; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC01FE0AE4 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:49:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id wp4so649132obc.10 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:49:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=fKyoMJ245HXfrgrvRhTfrjp1+tyNashe9hQjVs6zhoQ=; b=VHKf4g+nEvQhTHbC3bhYPhRoD68+18M8m1PlJjTQcvfREvDDnTTYJF6d++IZR2nrSW wNTJbb0y/DspUjJTQSn/hmBLwtEE08rFAeKqKXSZlBBWSwDPvI1IJmINX92lAT55MsEh iOmrw0pjpfXbkOORdOLuneBKAr88sY01BM5S9N3mt2XNKfS+nNGXwvgQVyeX9qAoI/Nv 4P/J8noXtErdjINjzQwbcRQMiG4/jBrXVuqLps0BYrc+akVAfJA2Mm3Tz+QPD6FQWjxX /FncuilpjAJrsg6ogrrYYyeV/eb7NzwKoLsNn4SJCBuzbaa1IKDlUkvyqGgbsy9frc1j An6Q== X-Received: by 10.182.29.66 with SMTP id i2mr22828obh.23.1389761387930; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:49:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from laptop (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c6sm3672311oeu.6.2014.01.14.20.49.44 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:49:46 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by laptop (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:49:48 -0600 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:49:48 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140115044948.GA4345@laptop.home> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> 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; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AqsLC8rIMeq19msA" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: d8910fc4-b97e-47ee-b7ec-0539050d73af X-Archives-Hash: 9dabe955ea48af0235a7a4f71a5b7ea2 --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:48:53AM +0700, grozin@gentoo.org wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, William Hubbs wrote: > > 1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on ar= ch's > > they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arch teams, but I > > think it would be good to formalize it. > +1 >=20 > Also, there is a substantial number of packages which contain only python= =20 > code (or perl, ruby), or only LaTeX classes, or only documentation. It=20 > makes no sense to test them on each arch separately. I think maintainers= =20 > should be allowed to stabilize such packages (with no compiled code) on= =20 > all arches. There is a reason we don't do this, back in Gentoo history somewhere, but I don't remember what it was. If someone can tell us why this isn't allowed I am all ears. Otherwise, I could agree on this point as well. William --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlLWE2wACgkQblQW9DDEZTjjSwCgnJa/e11oJ4A2dS+gZIOgmWZW dUEAn3h8Il2flsQSuguZvH5zLHMt8uDj =Dkh7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA--