From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JZFfS-0002BZ-HU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:22:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D11AEE06B8; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:22:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4B9E06B8 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7CB565E07 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:16:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.888 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.711, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 qg5-Ji+IkyU5 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:16:34 +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 46271647B1 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:16:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JZFZv-0001F9-If for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:16:23 +0000 Received: from static24-72-115-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca ([24.72.115.196]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:16:23 +0000 Received: from dirtyepic by static24-72-115-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:16:23 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Keywords policy Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:16:14 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20080301103002.A2AE266A22@smtp.gentoo.org> <200803081610.33774.philantrop@gentoo.org> <20080310060849.4c2bf0c9@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <47D4F26C.7050701@gentoo.org> <20080310145044.19146whhfp0x6h0k@www2.mailstation.de> <20080310162619.50952j57if1ecwt4@www2.mailstation.de> <20080311044938.72401cd7@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <47D60D36.6090402@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig1B627B579B5B93D91E4BF46F" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static24-72-115-196.yorkton.accesscomm.ca User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080227 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=F9A40662; url=subkeys.pgp.net Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: a2efa629-05cc-427b-972f-f9d23919c961 X-Archives-Hash: 4161786f8a2b0d84f229c7eaae4e1780 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig1B627B579B5B93D91E4BF46F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alec Warner wrote: > On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill wrote: >> Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:26:19 +0100 >> > "Wulf C. Krueger" wrote: >> > >> >> No, we didn't because the whole thing is p.masked for a reason. It= , >> >> KDE 4.0.1, is broken crap that should not yet be re-keyworded. >> > >> > OK then. and I am not going to cross-post this to -dev@, btw: why t= he >> > hell did you decide to put broken crap in the tree? It should never= have >> > left your repository, it seems. >> >> It's package masked and unkeyworded, which is a big hint that it's und= er >> development. >=20 > So Jer should just implicitly know not to keyword it? Why not make it > explicit? That is all I am really asking for here. How much more explicit can you make it than dropping every arch's keyword= s and=20 putting it in package mask? The problem here is that Jeroen decided that= this=20 was a violation of the keyword policy and blindly added his keywords back= =2E Fair=20 enough, everyone makes a mistake from time to time. But after more than = a few=20 people have tried to explain why this was a mistake, he still refuses to = admit=20 it and claims the keywords were dropped illegally. I'm just pointing out= that=20 this is not the case, and never has been. If a maintainer package masks = an=20 ebuild, you don't mess with it without talking to them. This is coming s= traight=20 from the handbook. >> > If you still wonder why I started rekeywording for HPPA, then let t= his >> > be the final answer. It was no fault of mine - I did it on purpose.= No >> > keywording error - I was going to finish all the dependencies if yo= u >> > hadn't asked me not to (because by then you were claiming KDE team >> > "reserves" the "right" to drop keywords at will and without notifyi= ng >> > arch teams, as opposed to current policy. The repoman bug / missing= >> > feature left a few stones unturned, sadly, but I was going to do al= l of >> > KDE 4. >> >> You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebui= lds >> keyworded. That's why they _weren't_ keyworded. That's why there wa= s no bug >> filed, saying "hey we dropped these keywords" because they _did not w= ant_ you to >> add them back yet. When the ebuilds were of sufficient quality that = they could >> be tested, then a bug is filed, the ebuilds are tested, and then re-k= eyworded. >=20 > Right, but you did not make your want known, so how is Jer to know? >> Maintainers have every right to drop keywords if they think changes t= o their >> package are drastic enough to require re-evaluation by an architectur= e team. >> It's how we keep big fat calamity from befalling our users. Yes, the= y need to >> inform the arch teams to re-add their keywords. No that request does= not need >> to come immediately if they're not ready for it. >> >> A simple rule to go by: Dropped keywords on package.masked packages = are not >> dropped keywords. If that package comes out of package.mask and stil= l lacks >> your keyword and no bug is filed, then yes, then you have a legitimat= e beef. >> >> This is simply the way things work from my point of view as a maintai= ner and a >> arch dev for a oft keyword-dropped arch. >=20 > RIght but if everyone is not following the same rules you > get...well...this exact situation. The whole point of this discussion > is not to assign blame, it is to figure out what we should change so > this doesn't happen again as it obviously upset lots of folks. As far as I know this is policy. It has worked so far, but if something = needs=20 to change then so be it. --=20 fonts, gcc-porting, by design, by neglect mips, treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 --------------enig1B627B579B5B93D91E4BF46F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH1y7fiqiDRvmkBmIRCBCMAJ46AjmAip1ORogE9ncG9VdCSlVyxQCg0YYG 6Tr8sszleaPY8SheHajHkRg= =9XKR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig1B627B579B5B93D91E4BF46F-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list