On Sunday 04 September 2005 23:39, Stuart Herbert wrote: > Hi Grant, > > On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 15:53 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > I'm still thinking about the concept of a "maint" option. This > > question I can answer, however. It's not unheard of for a package > > with a lot of dependencies to be marked stable when one of the > > dependencies has not yet been so marked. In that sort of > > tree-breaking case, the arch teams actually do know better, since > > they maintain ``arch`` systems (or chroots) for testing. > > Yes, but if package maintainers aren't allowed to mark packages as > stable on anything but the "maintainer arch" (unless they are also a > member of an arch team), this problem shouldn't happen. > > At the moment, the only way for a package maintainer to mark a package > stable is to mark it stable on a "real" arch. Creating the > "maintainer" arch solves this very problem.
I agree with this. It should also be a simple, backwards compatible solution. Just don't call it maintainer, but maint or something like that ;-) Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpwpomJOuRW0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
