On Sunday 04 September 2005 03:59 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:26:37 +0100 Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | > 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 :) > > Sure, we do that anyway. However, sometimes package maintainers are > outright wrong. >
agreed talk/communcation is fine, if the maintainer is only trying to flex muscles and does not have a good reason, the arch team ought to be able to do what is best for gentoo and not be shot down by a (hm) stubborn(?) maintainer, if the maintaner could do that, the arch team would be quite limited in its effectiveness > | 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? > > Pretty regularly. A significant number of package maintainers have a > very shoddy attitude towards QA, and a significant number of upstreams > have no clue what portability is. > > | 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. > > If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of > package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more > testing", not "might work".
pgp9ahKI3ctaR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
