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 1EC1RT-0007CW-88 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:50:19 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j84KkLGH001947; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:46:21 GMT Received: from buggy.blubb.ch (range21-65.shlink.ch [217.148.7.65]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j84Kh59L031478 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:43:05 GMT Received: from aqua ([192.168.10.5]) by buggy.blubb.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EC1LV-000094-EG for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:44:09 +0200 Message-ID: <431B5D0B.4000808@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:46:03 +0200 From: Simon Stelling User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tentative x86 arch team glep References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125863332.11366.89.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904210535.24ab8a39@snowdrop.home> <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> In-Reply-To: <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f1f01ff8-91c1-4430-9623-5d5a0c0c12fc X-Archives-Hash: 51f6f00422d344cd9db6d0e361cd4346 Stuart Herbert wrote: > I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their > own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. > Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform, > when is there ever a need for arch maintainers to decide that they know > better than package maintainers? I assume you're talking of the case where arch team and maintainer's arch are the same. I think normally package maintainers can decide better whether their package should go stable on their arch than an arch team, as they get all the bugs for it. On the other hand, we can't define a "maintainer arch" in many cases, so either we leave the authority to the arch team or we'll just have an x86 arch team without the expected effects. > If this isn't confined - if arch maintainers are allowed to override > package maintainers wherever they want to - then arch teams need to take > on the support burden. Fair's fair - if it's the arch team creating the > support, it's only fair that they support users in these cases. It's > completely unfair - and unrealistic - to expect a package maintainer to > support a package he/she thinks isn't fit to be stable on an arch that > he/she probably doesn't use anyway. In such a conflict of egos, the > real losers remain our users. That'd mean that you normally have assigned to the maintainer and x86@ in CC or vice versa, right? For that you need a huuuge x86 arch team... > It's just a word. Provided the concept is agreed on, the word isn't the > most important thing in the world. I'd prefer machamalahalabad ;) Regards, -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead blubb@gentoo.org -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list