On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 19:42 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > On Friday 16 September 2005 00:20, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > actually this is came up in the meeting as something we would like to see > > spelled out explicitly ... either as a GLEP itself or as a policy update to > > current stabilization practices > > > > the GLEP was approved on the grounds that we need an x86 team and that it > > needs to be treated as any other arch ... arch team interaction with > > maintainers should be spelled out clearly rather than part of a single > > sentence '... or make individual arrangements with the x86 arch team.' > > Ok, I do think that we will need a way for the maintainer to indicate that > the > package is stable. I'd be happy to leave stabilizing out of my hands, but I > wouldn't want my packages to be stabilized before I deem it stable. >
File a bug if the arches (or main ones at least) haven't picked it up yet? Will make the problem of missing some or other keyword minimal (especially for some obscure package not often used). -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
