From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JYwzP-0007bZ-St for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:25:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 873DFE02DA; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41883E0438; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:40:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.120] (static24-72-115-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca [24.72.115.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35976639C; Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <47D60D36.6090402@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:40:22 -0600 From: Ryan Hill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080227 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 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 To: Jeroen Roovers CC: gentoo-core@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Keywords policy References: <20080301103002.A2AE266A22@smtp.gentoo.org> <18385.19961.449228.320972@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20080308154504.02af79c2@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <200803081610.33774.philantrop@gentoo.org> <20080310060849.4c2bf0c9@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <47D4F26C.7050701@gentoo.org> <20080310145044.19146whhfp0x6h0k@www2.mailstation.de> <20080310162619.50952j57if1ecwt4@www2.mailstation.de> <20080311044938.72401cd7@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20080311044938.72401cd7@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=F9A40662; url=subkeys.pgp.net Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig134EC0FF83CA4A3F970EFF9F" X-Archives-Salt: c8bc30ff-7c08-4d59-a752-27917ae7ee23 X-Archives-Hash: 7381efa489c490eb310018d39aed614a This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig134EC0FF83CA4A3F970EFF9F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:26:19 +0100 > "Wulf C. Krueger" wrote: >=20 >> No, we didn't because the whole thing is p.masked for a reason. It, =20 >> KDE 4.0.1, is broken crap that should not yet be re-keyworded. >=20 > OK then. and I am not going to cross-post this to -dev@, btw: why the > hell did you decide to put broken crap in the tree? It should never hav= e > left your repository, it seems. It's package masked and unkeyworded, which is a big hint that it's under = development. > If you still wonder why I started rekeywording for HPPA, then let this > be the final answer. It was no fault of mine - I did it on purpose. No > keywording error - I was going to finish all the dependencies if you > hadn't asked me not to (because by then you were claiming KDE team > "reserves" the "right" to drop keywords at will and without notifying > arch teams, as opposed to current policy. The repoman bug / missing > feature left a few stones unturned, sadly, but I was going to do all of= > KDE 4. You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebuilds= =20 keyworded. That's why they _weren't_ keyworded. That's why there was no= bug=20 filed, saying "hey we dropped these keywords" because they _did not want_= you to=20 add them back yet. When the ebuilds were of sufficient quality that they= could=20 be tested, then a bug is filed, the ebuilds are tested, and then re-keywo= rded. Maintainers have every right to drop keywords if they think changes to th= eir=20 package are drastic enough to require re-evaluation by an architecture te= am.=20 It's how we keep big fat calamity from befalling our users. Yes, they ne= ed to=20 inform the arch teams to re-add their keywords. No that request does not= need=20 to come immediately if they're not ready for it. A simple rule to go by: Dropped keywords on package.masked packages are = not=20 dropped keywords. If that package comes out of package.mask and still la= cks=20 your keyword and no bug is filed, then yes, then you have a legitimate be= ef. This is simply the way things work from my point of view as a maintainer = and a=20 arch dev for a oft keyword-dropped arch. --=20 fonts, gcc-porting, by design, by neglect mips, treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 --------------enig134EC0FF83CA4A3F970EFF9F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFH1g03iqiDRvmkBmIRCOdbAKCCOtW8K5t+hMwqLoEwa053xwZI3gCYr400 3jej/xSr4+hkGERdOQb+/w== =PLGz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig134EC0FF83CA4A3F970EFF9F-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list