-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Loeser wrote: > Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation of > what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back marking a > package stable. The only information I've been able to find states that they > could cause a performance hit, but this doesn't seem to warrant banning them > completely in my eyes. > > Getting a clear cut policy on exactly what issues should hold a package back > from being marked stable is what I'm looking for. Issues like textrels, > executable stacks, etc is what I'm looking for to be defined and explained > why > we are to always avoid them. This should be added to existing documentation > policy so it is somewhere for new devs to know about, and existing devs to > have for a reference. > > Thanks > Only problem I see with this is binary packages. We can not control upstream binaries as everyone is aware of. So when does it become safe to override stable packages that have texrel's and executable stacks? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDn2BVGDfjNg8unQIRAupGAKCiTPJseSVrklDjWXqwEdeHFDxnRQCcD0xQ mzjn2yXHiNSdBcnFkCTD+u0= =RYEw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
