From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64535-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82AD6138247
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:05:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E0CB7E0E31;
Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:05:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B08E0E0E28
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:05:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from marga.jer-c2.orkz.net (D4B2706A.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [212.178.112.106])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: jer)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA70C33FBC8
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:46:07 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:46:01 +0100
From: Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add a KEYWORD representing any arch
Message-ID: <20140122164601.0b51a460@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net>
In-Reply-To: <21211.40692.574361.53989@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home>
<alpine.LFD.2.03.1401171248170.24079@star.inp.nsk.su>
<alpine.LFD.2.03.1401171358360.3646@star.inp.nsk.su>
<201401190336.10465.vapier@gentoo.org>
<1390123713.24148.121.camel@belkin5>
<21211.40692.574361.53989@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.22; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 6027875a-4ad5-4440-bacf-57deb4b598c7
X-Archives-Hash: 9217c44b706368ad86b94c0975fc17df
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:46:28 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Instead, we should come up with a clear set of rules under what
> circumstances package maintainers are allowed to stabilise ebuilds
> themselves on all architectures.
The cases where stabilisation is important (for security, progress) are
usually those where this arbitrary type of stabilisation is not an
option, unless we drop all pretence of upholding the dictionary meaning
of "stabilisation".
What we need is architecture teams that clearly do the work (as a team),
or we drop their stable status. Recent "advances" in stabilisation
practices certainly haven't helped establish a reliable picture of some
teams.
If a team cannot keep up stabilising thousands of packages, then it
should focus in the short term on dropping keywords for "extra"
packages, and then in the long term focus on getting a reliable base
system up to date (i.e. drop all the "fun" keywording and focus on what
that platform really must have to get a system running).
If all that doesn't pan out, then we should set the QA hounds on
them. :)
jer