Hi Phil,
Am 16.10.2009 um 18:53 schrieb Philip Brown:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Dagobert Michelsen
<[email protected]> wrote:
....
Yes. Hopefully this BDB thing gets fixed tomorrow. But I replied for
another reason: It would be nice to note on a package which status
it is in: ...
doing stable is a huge undertaking.
I dont think we should be throwing extra "requests" in there, before
we even have someone officially volunteering to do the BASIC work.
there's more than enough work there as is.
I can't remember that we even have defined this is, besides
"Q/A", but what specifically? I know James has an infrastructure
with cleanroom-install-depend-checks, ldd-inspection of libs and
stuff. It would be good to formalize as much as feasible what a
package must actually conform to to be good for stable.
Currently at least I don't know how many, let alone what packages
are really broken. If James already has all the tests we
should apply them routinely on the farm for all packages.
And: no, "somebody must have used the package" is not the
only criterium for stable.
Best regards
-- Dago
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
