On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:05 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Workable for a certain category of packages so long as it's advisory > only.
Workable for the vast majority of packages in the tree I expect. > Arch teams need to be allowed to override maintainers where > appropriate, Why not talk to the package maintainers instead, and convince them that you need a different version marking "maint" instead? Why "override" (which, tbh, smacks of "we arch teams know best, life would be better without package maintainers") when you could work with people instead? You're *not* in competition with package maintainers. We're all supposed to be working towards the same thing :) I've no personal problem with arch teams sometimes needing to do their own thing, provided it's confined to a specific class of package. Outside of the core packages required to boot & maintain a platform, when is there ever a need for arch maintainers to decide that they know better than package maintainers? If this isn't confined - if arch maintainers are allowed to override package maintainers wherever they want to - then arch teams need to take on the support burden. Fair's fair - if it's the arch team creating the support, it's only fair that they support users in these cases. It's completely unfair - and unrealistic - to expect a package maintainer to support a package he/she thinks isn't fit to be stable on an arch that he/she probably doesn't use anyway. In such a conflict of egos, the real losers remain our users. > And "maint" as a name? Yick. "maintainer" or "owner" maybe. It's just a word. Provided the concept is agreed on, the word isn't the most important thing in the world. Best regards, Stu -- Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/ GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
