On 7/9/2005 3:10:12, Stuart Longland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 9:44:41 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > | On 5/9/2005 1:29:57, Ciaran McCreesh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > | > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 1:12:54 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" > > | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > | > wrote: > > | > | 3) All packages need to be assigned an x86 arch team member > > | > | responsible. > > | > > > | > Why? > > | > > | Because if only the x86 arch team can mark stuff stable, anything > > | without representation on the x86 arch team will stay unstable > > | forever. Maybe rather than one specific arch team member, several > > | would undertake to manage otherwise unassigned packages. > > > > There are currently ~700 packages which are not visible to x86 or ~x86 > > users. Do these need an x86 arch team member? Is it the aim of the x86 > > arch team to cover the entire tree, or only things which are useful to > > x86 users? > > If nobody on x86 is using a given package, is there a need to worry > about marking it ~x86/x86?
When I said 'All', I didn't mean to include stuff that's not in x86. What I was trying to get at, was the idea that if the x86 arch team is responsible for stable marking x86, then all packages that want to go x86 need representation on the x86 arch team. Kev. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
