On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 16:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 16 September 2005 04:44 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:33:13 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > | ok, e17 packages dont count here. however, your hardcore view i > > | still dont buy. how about the baselayout-1.9.x -> baselayout-1.11.x > > | stabilization process ? are you telling me that arch teams should > > | have had the power to move those into stable without talking to the > > | maintainer ? baselayout may be a core package, but if you continue > > | with your hard rule here, then it doesnt matter. > > > > I'm saying that arch teams should be allowed to mark it stable if they > > think it's appropriate. Not that it must be moved to stable after $x > > days, but that it can be at the arch team's discretion. And any arch > > team which is silly enough to mark a broken baselayout stable has far > > bigger problems anyway... > > baselayout is an example, any package can be used here (although not many are > as critical) > > i'm saying that the maintainer may have a certain idea of when the package is > ready for stable (a target feature set, working out certain quirks, etc...). > your current hard view does not allow for that. for example, i had an arch > maintainer one time mark bash-3 stable before base-system was ready for it > (readline, baselayout, etc... were going to be stabilized together). i > smacked them hard for it, but if we went with this hard view, it would have > been perfectly acceptable behavior.
We still have KEYWORDS="-*". Sure, I know many do not like it, and if something was decided in regards to it, I missed it, but it is generally seen as 'less severe' than a package.mask'd mask, and its local to the package, so should not get stale. -- Martin Schlemmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
