From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IHU7d-0004n9-7o for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:37:29 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l750ZkYU026178; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 00:35:46 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l750XT5T023325 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 00:33:29 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EA1650FD for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 00:33:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.937 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.937 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.564, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.5] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KsOw5yOCC+9l for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 00:33:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E65655CA for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2007 00:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IHTxR-0007QO-L4 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:26:57 +0200 Received: from 82.153.194.134 ([82.153.194.134]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:26:57 +0200 Received: from slong by 82.153.194.134 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:26:57 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Some ideas on how to reduce territoriality Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:19:33 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1186178767.8470.47.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.153.194.134 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id l750ZkaQ026178 X-Archives-Salt: e564c685-7c67-4e20-99dc-0151ee9e6b28 X-Archives-Hash: cd29418fe39a84a36852a09547bc0931 Tiziano M=FCller wrote: > Chris Gianelloni schrieb: >> - arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting KEYWOR= D >> changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional dependencie= s >> for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but really are >> required to make the necessary changes to add support for your >> architecture. > And what is going to happen with the patch? Should go upstream, but > who's responsible for that? > Er, the maintainer; if s/he's not bothered about the package compiling on different archs, should s/he really be maintaining it? I doubt upstream would appreciate that from a distro -- and it's not hard to file a quick bug with a link to the gentoo one; a quick comment on the gentoo one and any interested users can help upstream to triage it. >> - metadata.xml changes > With limitations. > Maintainer sounds like a definite no-no. Any others? >> - Version bumps where the only requirement is to "cp" the ebuild > Just "cp"'ing the ebuilds is the reason that so many ebuilds are still = a > nightmare and full of little nasty bugs. > > This is a complete no-go since there are so many things a careful > maintainer has to consider (besides checking the packages changelog, th= e > dependencies, the license, the docs, etc. he should also check the > ebuild). > Yeah but if they can compile it and it works as an app (however that's defined, this /is/ usr-land) what's the harm in bumping and allowing othe= rs to test it? (This is unstable, I hope..) If they can't be bothered to do that, how can they possibly claim to be testing it? (And why are they eve= n touching it if they're not interested? ;) [I dunno how make test fits int= o this, either, as tests were broken for synfig.] If the maintainer doesn't like it, well s/he's already got the new versio= n working on one arch/ machine (plus whichever user bugged the dev.) I can'= t see anyone really bemoaning a new tester ;P --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list