On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:14:08PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > 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). I would prefer this route, personally.
Jamming a maint keyword into the ebuild is kind of ugly from where I sit :) ~harring
pgp1E2oHKfzdH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
