From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21232 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2004 23:14:40 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Jun 2004 23:14:40 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BcuTO-0005A2-Ps for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:14:38 +0000 Received: (qmail 11081 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jun 2004 23:14:38 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 22584 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2004 23:14:38 +0000 Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:25:43 +0000 (UTC) From: Ferris McCormick X-X-Sender: fmccor@terciopelo.krait.us To: Aron Griffis cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20040622213309.GD8309@mustard.flatmonk.org> Message-ID: References: <200406221341.39764.carlo@gentoo.org> <20040622144422.GC8968@mustard.zk3.dec.com> <20040622213309.GD8309@mustard.flatmonk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] summary: proposed solutions to arches/stable problem X-Archives-Salt: 61de0532-9ae3-4a4f-be78-82531131783f X-Archives-Hash: 9e24e20ffadef8e65b1586c59c5705c4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Aron Griffis wrote: > At this point I've made a couple suggestions, and developers have > voiced either support or objections, and raised some good arguments > either way. I'm hoping this email will summarize the three suggested > approaches, their pros and cons, and we can eventually converge on a > single solution. > > Proposed solutions: > > I. "stable" keyword > ------------------- > > II. "marked keyword" indicates maintainer's arch > ------------------------------------------------ > III. first keyword marks maintainer's arch > ------------------------------------------ > > IV. in metadata.xml > ------------------------------------- > Personal leaning: > > I like solution II, "marked keyword", best because it clearly > calls out the maintainer's tested arch(es). > I would like to hear feedback so that we can make a choice, do the > necessary steps for implementation, and bring about a positive QA > change in the portage tree. Hopefully along with an improvement in > the package/arch-maintainer relationship :-) > If I understand II (which I missed or misread in the first wave of these notes), it says something like "A keyword of '+amd64' means that 'the maintainer believes that this package is a candidate for stable, and it is in fact stable on amd64, which is where the maintainer tested it." (And, I suppose, in an unusual situation, the maintainer could use just 'amd64' to mean "For critical reasons this has to be stable on amd64 even though I the maintainer am not all *that* confident." In this case, the maintainer would be wearing ar architecture hat.) If my first sentence is close to correct (everything up to the hypothetical), my preference is also solution II. Regards, Ferris > Regards, > Aron > > -- > Aron Griffis > Gentoo Linux Developer > > - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) Developer, Gentoo Linux (sparc) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA2LHsQa6M3+I///cRArIzAKCyawkllV+bOdhcJYwUTCXyGL5kngCfXQkA yC9cBrSXFhKj+EDbNWpD3uA= =rX0h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list