public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Search results ordered by [date|relevance]  view[summary|nested|Atom feed]
thread overview below | download: 
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
  @ 2014-01-15  4:49 99%   ` William Hubbs
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: William Hubbs @ 2014-01-15  4:49 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 881 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:48:53AM +0700, grozin@gentoo.org wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, William Hubbs wrote:
> > 1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on arch's
> > they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arch teams, but I
> > think it would be good to formalize it.
> +1
> 
> 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.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

^ 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 99%   ` William Hubbs

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox