В Втр, 11/03/2008 в 06:36 +0100, Jeroen Roovers пишет: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:04:54 -0600 > Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Just like when you add a new ebuild, you add it with the keywords for > > architectures you personally have verified to work. > > It seems you're confusing packages and ebuilds now.
Jeroen, there are two different things that were already told in this tread, but I'll try to repeat in different words, in hope to make them clearer. 1. keywords were dropped on purpose: kde-4 is a major rewrite and it is supposed to be thoroughly tested by arch team before becoming ~arch. This fits our current policy. 2. you can not expect anything about the hardmasked ebuild/package[1]: don't expect that it'll work, don't expect maintainers to tell you anything (fill you bug) about it. We have such packages in the tree because some brave users[2] and maintainers want to test them before they'll enter ~arch. But for users we have policy to prohibit bugs for hardmasked packages because if you want to report anything back you are supposed to follow Gentoo and upstream development and if you follow, you'll know what reports are allowed and that this policy is not quite true :). If you'd followed kde development you'd were aware about changes and you tested packages together with kde developers and ebuilds entered tree with ~hppa. You don't follow kde development than it's better not to touch hardmasked kde packages. So if you want to see another policy it's possible to write that arch teams should not bother to work with hardmasked ebuilds and that's it. But I do not think we need such policy as hardmasked means hidden far from users... [1] yes, the are the same in this context [2] developers who are not maintainers are users too With best wishes, -- Peter.
signature.asc
Description: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью
