On Tuesday 07 June 2005 22:56, Olivier Crete wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-06 at 17:44 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: > > Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:[Tue Jun 07 2005, 05:32:31PM EDT] > > > > > I also vote for alpha. I would like to see some indication of > > > maintainer arch in metadata too, but in general agree with the > > > policy of if one arch stabilises then we can assume that is the > > > maintainer arch. > > > > Whoa, careful there. It's not a policy and it's not even > > a recommendation. I believe there are arch teams that will > > automatically stable a package after it has been ~arch for a period of > > time. They will break your assumption. > > This would be very evil. Are you sure its not a policy? Because it > should be and it has been discussed before. Arch teams should NOT get > ahead of the maintainer without his permission... or if they really > really know what they are doing. Maintainers normally know their > package/ebuilds and often have very good reasons to keep a package ~arch > for more than 30 days.. This is almost as evil as keywording on > architectures on which you can't test.. > I have always managed to spot (I think) the ones that looked like they skipped ahead of the maintainer, but it is another reason why having a maintainer arch set would be nice. I thought it was policy/a suggestion, or at least polite and so I always try to check with the maintainer if a package isn't stable and we need it for some reason.
It would be nice to receive clarification on this issue, as there are times when new packages fix issues the maintainer is not aware of or does not encounter on his/her arch. I think every maintainer I have talked to has been helpful and we sorted it out between ourselves. Thanks, Marcus -- Gentoo Linux Developer Scientific Applications | AMD64 | KDE | net-proxy
pgpsNntWxFEOQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
