* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
@ 2014-01-15 5:07 99% ` Robin H. Johnson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Robin H. Johnson @ 2014-01-15 5:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:49:48PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Also, there is a substantial number of packages which contain only python
> > code (or perl, ruby), or only LaTeX classes, or only documentation. It
> > makes no sense to test them on each arch separately. I think maintainers
> > should be allowed to stabilize such packages (with no compiled code) on
> > all arches.
> There is a reason we don't do this, back in Gentoo history somewhere, but I
> don't remember what it was.
>
> If someone can tell us why this isn't allowed I am all ears. Otherwise,
> I could agree on this point as well.
I vaguely recall an example of some non-compiled Perl code that wasn't
portable over architectures.
However I feel that should really be the exception, not the general
case.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2014-01-14 21:37 [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy William Hubbs
2014-01-15 3:48 ` grozin
2014-01-15 4:49 ` William Hubbs
2014-01-15 5:07 99% ` Robin H. Johnson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox