From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-66947-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 8EEDF13877A
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:19:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CFD5BE0DC7;
Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:19:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com (mail-oa0-f46.google.com [209.85.219.46])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9739E0B0F
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:19:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id m1so6991828oag.5
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to
:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition
:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=b8/OHLGuYKYpRBVEI4H38++J++L9gTjvP8TO8FYKWl8=;
b=xiPVJ/5oCWshoAYyR6MdpPCgWu4D08GdpFXH68SIIKoTeXAKr59hGqkGroN1bfL8uB
34O/IYsepa+D6HPKh5+qJUwtB4FaYA6fRdWwf8oJz6+BbMDdC7XcOvr5jyERjwwQQFpz
DlLtx7UXNVjl6uXZFn3pnv4cl8KVE2PhncBKOwtxIfyo2m3NrWJKCSbMZ0vhx3KlUx03
BHuqGh2xssMODT0hBe75lMhVuvlO+ssCnpwaCX/AU/pQCa+xDcKAA8+wJ/uHgYlFsL8E
lM13Q7VhNbfIu0twnZAswt4o7cI4zp/3Dt8FS1But1C011Uv+3w8pM9uiNO24cZAXapc
zfAA==
X-Received: by 10.182.102.197 with SMTP id fq5mr32688355obb.3.1406395185022;
Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id go5sm5708978obb.17.2014.07.26.10.19.42
for <multiple recipients>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com>
Received: (nullmailer pid 14098 invoked by uid 1000);
Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:19:40 -0000
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:19:40 -0500
From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: dilfridge@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status
Message-ID: <20140726171940.GA14029@linux1>
Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, dilfridge@gentoo.org
References: <1406316517.20388.22.camel@gentoo.org>
<20140726153904.GA13389@linux1>
<20140726162011.GB13389@linux1>
<201407261832.01411.dilfridge@gentoo.org>
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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wac7ysb48OaltWcw"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201407261832.01411.dilfridge@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Archives-Salt: 00ec9472-b8a5-4f37-b6df-16dae4915ca9
X-Archives-Hash: 6bb4b52e7961105ad4541f6ece36e0e6
--wac7ysb48OaltWcw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 06:31:50PM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 18:20:11 schrieb William Hubbs:
> > I know I'm replying to my own message, but I do have a concern about
> > this that I want to ask about.
> >=20
> > When a stable request is filed for a package, it is filed for all
> > architectures which have the ~arch keyword for the package and are
> > marked stable or dev in profiles.desc.
> >=20
> > If an arch wants to stay marked stable or dev but only stabilize a
> > subset of packages, I think it is reasonable to drop that arch's
> > keywords from packages they decide not to stabilize rather than move the
> > keywords to ~arch. That makes it obvious that we shouldn't file stable
> > requests on that package for that arch.
>=20
> I'd say the decision should be made by the arch team, not by the package=
=20
> maintainer.=20
>=20
> Means, arch teams can drop keywors in packages, but normally stabilizatio=
n=20
> goes ahead as usual and requests are filed. Whether they are then honoure=
d is=20
> another question.
If an arch team isn't going to honor a stable request, shouldn't they
remove themselves from it and say so?
Also, if an arch team does that, does that mean we don't have to file
stable requests for that arch on future versions of the package?
William
--wac7ysb48OaltWcw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlPT4ywACgkQblQW9DDEZTgqPgCeN8Eg359MNdq8KCkIcIDMoGez
CkkAn3075eICaAJwaPyyEIDVgyTb4VQK
=SjcK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--wac7ysb48OaltWcw--