From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NvpMU-0006rR-TE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:04:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 12D5CE07B2; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:04:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED3CE079B for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:04:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (smer.tone.cz [89.250.247.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B016423D for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:04:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4BAF29AD.7090505@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:04:29 +0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Tom=E1=9A_Chv=E1tal?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100326 Thunderbird/3.0.3 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: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reworking package stabilization policies References: <20100327205841.GA12996@linux1> <201003280747.28790.reavertm@gmail.com> <20100328083918.48f5835b@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: <20100328083918.48f5835b@snowmobile> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e7fc7f29-d8fa-4b3a-b2ef-11ce9dfdfa51 X-Archives-Hash: 19b85693251b689ff91959b5b4b20cbc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dne 28.3.2010 09:39, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:47:27 +0200 > Maciej Mrozowski wrote: >> No, seriously - given the fact that some of my packages were even >> stabilized without contacting me (app-misc/hal-cups-utils, >> app-admin/system-config- printer-common) - I think it should be: > > Well you'd marked them "~arch", right? That means they're candidates to > go stable. > Yes, but last time i checked we have consensus that archies should wait onto maintainer to request the stabling. >> * solely up to the package maintainers to stabilize application on >> arches they're using or on any arch if package is arch-agnostic >> (optionally, but preferably with some peer review from other project >> members or arch team members). > > There are no arch agnostic packages. I can find some, for example kde-l10n O:P But you are right. > >> It's really freaking silly to wait months for stabilization of some >> random php/perl library that's known to work. > > How do you know it works if you don't test on the arch in question? > Basically you are saying that NONE tested that package on the arch until the stablerequest. That's quite wrong and it should mean that the arch should be ~ only, since they are stabling packages that they first tested the day they stable them. Tomas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuvKa0ACgkQHB6c3gNBRYdaWACdGP3EvuvL3+GVXI8GBsU3fHqj Kq8AoJMyVDS8P0vCXfwJuGIIEQHWPgUL =CO3D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----