On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:54:02 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe the answer is to have separate trees for arches and general > packages then? That would be one solution. > > (Although not one that I'd personally prefer. I'd rather the package > maintainers learned to work within the rules instead.) I agree, I'd rather keep things as they are (and supposed to be) rather than do weird things like have arch specific trees. However, package maintainers (particularly in the scripting herds) need to be disabused of the notion of making assumptions about "my language is portable so I can mark this stable". While the script itself may be "portable", there may be core elements of said scripting language that don't work quite right and aren't noticed until some particular script package triggers it. This includes shells as well as regular programming languages. Cheers, -- Jason Wever Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead
pgpNWIIeP2Vm3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
