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 1II3KD-0007wf-8y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:12:50 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l76EBnbF016391; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:11:49 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 l76E9lxO014021 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:09:47 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA9E6547C for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:09:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.64 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.64 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.861, 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 ko5hoyHlDIJE for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:09:45 +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 15CD965440 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:09:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1II3Gy-0006hs-86 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:09:29 +0200 Received: from 82.152.210.201 ([82.152.210.201]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:09:28 +0200 Received: from slong by 82.152.210.201 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:09:28 +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: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:09:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1186178767.8470.47.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <20070805171438.0349a238@snowflake> 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=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.152.210.201 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: b710d76f-9ae7-4e29-b8ec-df85ce3330a6 X-Archives-Hash: 6c3012f013a2bcaf9178e7e2ec935596 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:06:07 -0700 > Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> - arch-specific patches/dependencies - If someone is requesting >> KEYWORD changes on a package and it requires a patch or additional >> dependencies for your architecture, you are not only permitted, but >> really are required to make the necessary changes to add support for >> your architecture. > > arch-specific patches are almost always wrong. The last thing people > need is to come along and find some arch developer has applied a bad > arch-specific patch without asking first... > Thing is, in such a case, the maintainer isn't going to be using the arch (or s/he'd have applied it already.) If there's a problem with the patch _on that arch_ (where else is it going to show up) the arch team (or the dev who applied it) is responsible for any bugs. If there's a problem with getting the bugs assigned to that team, it's a different issue (which needs to be resolved ofc.) You seem to be saying that arch teams are deliberately going to apply "bad patches" which makes no sense. If they do it's a QA and, ultimately, a devrel issue aiui. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list