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 4.43)
id 1ECE5b-0000Z5-Ar
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:20:36 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j85AGl9E032295;
Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:16:47 GMT
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j85ADvHk015104
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:13:57 GMT
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org)
by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1ECE2C-0000ho-A0
for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 10:17:04 +0000
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1ECE0C-0006cp-JL
for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:15:00 +0200
Received: from 206-163-248-232.yktn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca ([206.163.248.232])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:15:00 +0200
Received: from dirtyepic.sk by 206-163-248-232.yktn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:15:00 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: tentative x86 arch team glep
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 04:12:31 -0600
Message-ID: <pan.2005.09.05.10.12.29.368944@gmail.com>
References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125863332.11366.89.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904210535.24ab8a39@snowdrop.home> <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206-163-248-232.yktn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table)
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>
X-Archives-Salt: 5e6a7c56-268f-43b1-8d4d-b96a87d6c340
X-Archives-Hash: 112cbde22661d4f28dd96222ba132e92
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:26:37 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Why not talk to the package maintainers instead, and convince them that
> you need a different version marking "maint" instead? Why "override"
> (which, tbh, smacks of "we arch teams know best, life would be better
> without package maintainers") when you could work with people instead?
> You're *not* in competition with package maintainers. We're all supposed
> to be working towards the same thing :)
How about the ATs cc the maintainer on the bug they
file to get the pkg bumped to stable, and giving them a period of time
(48 hours? a week?) in which to raise any objections. Of course the AT's
would still have the power to go over the maintainers head in case of
an emergency - but only if the maintainer can't be reached, or can't do it
themselves for whatever reason, or is just being a big dink.
--de
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list