On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeroen Roovers wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:26:19 +0100 > > "Wulf C. Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> No, we didn't because the whole thing is p.masked for a reason. It, > >> KDE 4.0.1, is broken crap that should not yet be re-keyworded. > > > > OK then. and I am not going to cross-post this to -dev@, btw: why the > > hell did you decide to put broken crap in the tree? It should never have > > left your repository, it seems. > > > It's package masked and unkeyworded, which is a big hint that it's under > development.
So Jer should just implicitly know not to keyword it? Why not make it explicit? That is all I am really asking for here. > > > > If you still wonder why I started rekeywording for HPPA, then let this > > be the final answer. It was no fault of mine - I did it on purpose. No > > keywording error - I was going to finish all the dependencies if you > > hadn't asked me not to (because by then you were claiming KDE team > > "reserves" the "right" to drop keywords at will and without notifying > > arch teams, as opposed to current policy. The repoman bug / missing > > feature left a few stones unturned, sadly, but I was going to do all of > > KDE 4. > > > You're still not getting this. The KDE team did not _want_ these ebuilds > keyworded. That's why they _weren't_ keyworded. That's why there was no bug > filed, saying "hey we dropped these keywords" because they _did not want_ > you to > add them back yet. When the ebuilds were of sufficient quality that they > could > be tested, then a bug is filed, the ebuilds are tested, and then > re-keyworded. Right, but you did not make your want known, so how is Jer to know? > > Maintainers have every right to drop keywords if they think changes to their > package are drastic enough to require re-evaluation by an architecture team. > It's how we keep big fat calamity from befalling our users. Yes, they need > to > inform the arch teams to re-add their keywords. No that request does not > need > to come immediately if they're not ready for it. > > A simple rule to go by: Dropped keywords on package.masked packages are not > dropped keywords. If that package comes out of package.mask and still lacks > your keyword and no bug is filed, then yes, then you have a legitimate beef. > > This is simply the way things work from my point of view as a maintainer and > a > arch dev for a oft keyword-dropped arch. RIght but if everyone is not following the same rules you get...well...this exact situation. The whole point of this discussion is not to assign blame, it is to figure out what we should change so this doesn't happen again as it obviously upset lots of folks. -Alec > > > > -- > fonts, gcc-porting, by design, by neglect > mips, treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect > wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 > > > -- [email protected] mailing list
