On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Ben de Groot <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2 November 2012 18:01, Markos Chandras <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] >>> With the exception of hppa which explicitly says its use.mask shouldn't >>> be touched without permission, and now I can't enable pypy on flaggie >>> because that arch is slacking. Great, isn't it? >> >> As Michael already said on the very first post on this thread, you are >> free to touch the file is arch is slacking. > > In that case this whole policy is unnecessary, as the minor arches are > always slacking and unresponsive, while x86 and amd64 have no problems > with developers doing what they need to do in their profiles. > > In my opinion we should simply state that: > 1) contacting arch teams is preferred, but should not hold up > development activity if they are not immediately responsive > 2) we need make sure a bug is filed for each issue, so arch teams are > kept in the loop, and everyone can track what is going on > 3) small changes are no problem (e.g. package.use.mask), but > wider-reaching changes should be announced / discussed in advance >
which are the minor arches? And how do you classify arches on major and minor? I already said that if an arch is not responsive go ahead and commit your changes. Discussing it in a public ML everytime you want to touch the use.mask of an arch is not efficient. A bug may be preferred yes. Like I said, we already touch package.use.mask without previously getting an ACK from the arch so the policy for this situation will not change. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
