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 1ECIa2-00064b-Hy for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:08:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j85F47kQ026682; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 15:04:09 GMT Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net (sccrmhc14.comcast.net [63.240.76.49]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j85F1Gu7025765 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 15:01:17 GMT Received: from [67.191.205.38] (unknown[67.191.205.38]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with ESMTP id <2005090515042501400enngte>; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 15:04:25 +0000 Message-ID: <431C608D.6080609@ieee.org> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 11:13:17 -0400 From: "Nathan L. Adams" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050722) 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: <200509052041.56433.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <2O6RB.20073AOE@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <2O6RB.20073AOE@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f749152e-d458-4573-a8f1-560f78ff3c17 X-Archives-Hash: 43d372c6c68cf602bec3662a50ff67ce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On 5/9/2005 13:41:54, Jason Stubbs (jstubbs@gentoo.org) wrote: > >>On Monday 05 September 2005 20:21, Simon Stelling wrote: >> >>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> >>>>If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of >>>>package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more >>>>testing", not "might work". >>> >>>It's a bit of both. When you put a package into ~arch, it's in >>>"testing", so that says it needs further "testing" since there still >>>could be a not yet discovered bug, right? >> >>Testing of the ebuild rather than of the package, though. This is the >>point where people sometimes get confused. > > > That'd be me then :) > > So we're talking about correctness of ebuilds (correct dependencies, > use flag logic etc) and not whether the package actually works in depth. > The latter is what caused me to suggest drawing together a large team of > user-testers managed by arch-team devs. Correctness of ebuilds takes > us back to a dev role and the ebuild quiz, since it's necessary to > understand ebuilds to criticise them. > After a rather heated discussion a while back, I came up with this definition: - -arch :: the end-user software is/might be flakey ~arch :: the ebuild is/might be flakey but the software is good arch :: its all good :) Nathan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDHGCN2QTTR4CNEQARAiVdAJ9wVLt5CPyW//qxmuSC3GlZSOaI+QCeLqEl 78TX1Xtvbx7E4lBEdwnxMus= =T6ZT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list