(Probably off topic? I think Richard said something he didn't intend.) On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 11:24 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: > Alec Warner wrote: > > On 3/10/08, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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? > > > > I don't really want to get into the specifics of this situation but > wanted to raise a question of policy. > > My understanding is that arch teams shouldn't keyword anything without > the OK of the maintainer - usually in the form of a STABLEREQ bug. When > I get stable requests from users I don't act on them until I hear from > the maintainer for this reason. >
Um, not really --- this is too broad. Some packages are not keyworded because no one has ever tried them. We occasionally get keyword requests of the form "Please add ~sparc keyword to .... because I've been using it and it works fine" in response to which we do add the keyword if it does work. No maintainer action involved, because the maintainer apparently doesn't know if the package works on sparc or not anyway. A STABLEREQ is a different matter, masked packages are a different matter, but not just keywording. --- snip --- Regards, Ferris -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
