From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AFF41381F3 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 09:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EAA96E0990; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 09:33:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C523E0954 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 09:33:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [141.23.67.44] (wlan-141-23-67-44.tubit.tu-berlin.de [141.23.67.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 261DF33DF3D for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 09:33:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51D14CC1.9080500@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 11:32:49 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Questions for Candidates (was: Questioning/Interviewing council nominees) References: <51BF597B.6060600@gentoo.org> <51CF1759.10903@gentoo.org> <51CF4529.7010307@gentoo.org> <51D011C1.2040606@gentoo.org> <20130630185215.GA968@linux1> <1372625765.17485.18.camel@big_daddy.dol-sen.ca> <20130701005911.GA1936@linux1> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: a4879b70-e6a3-4e18-bb3d-885558d92857 X-Archives-Hash: 7486aeadee9fcca101f1141eda601b4a Rich Freeman schrieb: > If a maintainer just hates having foo-1.2 in the tree because they put > foo-1.3 in the tree yesterday, and foo-1.2 is stable on x86, we > already require them to wait until 1.3 can be stabilized (perhaps > rapidly if a security issue). Maintainers already must coordinate > with other projects. I did not say that maintainers can ignore policy. The removal of ebuilds must follow certain rules which are set in policy. For example, you cannot ignore reverse dependencies when removing a package. Also you are not allowed to drop the latest stable version of a package without following proper procedure. > However, if another dev wants to co-maintain and make that > non-upstream patch USE-dependent and support the work, the original > maintainer must allow them to do so. If the x32 project wants to add > a conditional patch to support their arch and they are willing to > follow-through on support, the original maintainer must allow this. > Non-maintainers must always collaborate with maintainers, but the > intent of that isn't so that maintainers can block other projects. With x32 specifically, a number of people including some upstreams think that the whole concept is a bad idea. A case could be made for patches that #ifdef x32 and which compile to a no-op on other arches, but even those must be maintained. What if the patch no longer applies after a version bump? > I've been in the place of having somebody come along and bump an EAPI > on me or make other changes that I'd honestly have been more > comfortable taking my time with. That's great, and I encourage all developers to allow this too. But I am against forcing anybody. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn