* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
@ 2014-01-15 8:18 99% ` Hans de Graaff
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Hans de Graaff @ 2014-01-15 8:18 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 22:49 -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.
Speaking for ruby I have seen various arch-related bugs in pure ruby
code. It doesn't happen a lot (maybe 1% of stable requests) but it is
also not predictable.
I also like the second set of eyes verifying what we've done as part of
marking a package stable, so I probably would still file bugs rather
than marking stuff stable myself.
Hans
^ 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 8:18 99% ` Hans de Graaff
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox