[arch-dev-public] signoff policy for "any" packages
What is the signoff policy for "arch=any" packages? Do we still need one for each architecture? Or just one. If one, should it be form the opposite architecture it was built on? Allan
Am Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:17:47 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
What is the signoff policy for "arch=any" packages? Do we still need one for each architecture? Or just one. If one, should it be form the opposite architecture it was built on?
Allan
One per architecture should be fine. But don't flood us too much with hard rules though stability has improved since we introduced the signoff procedure. We should all trust each other and there's always somebody around who can do a quick fix. If we stop breaking stuff Arch fun would have gone... :D -Andy
On 28/11/2009, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
What is the signoff policy for "arch=any" packages? Do we still need one for each architecture? Or just one. If one, should it be form the opposite architecture it was built on? I think one signoff for each architecture is the right thing.
-- Andrea `bash` Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
2009/11/28, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
What is the signoff policy for "arch=any" packages? Do we still need one for each architecture? Or just one. If one, should it be form the opposite architecture it was built on?
For arch=any packages, I think that is enough 1 signoff only. Is it right? -- Arch Linux Developer http://www.archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.it
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Giovanni Scafora <giovanni@archlinux.org> wrote:
2009/11/28, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
What is the signoff policy for "arch=any" packages? Do we still need one for each architecture? Or just one. If one, should it be form the opposite architecture it was built on?
For arch=any packages, I think that is enough 1 signoff only. Is it right?
The problem with this is when your 1 signoff comes from someone using the same arch as you, and you put ELF files in the package without paying attention, you lose. I think there are multiple ways to make it easier. One is to show that you have used namcap to verify there are no architecture-dependent files in the package. Also let people know what architecture you built it on; a signoff from the opposite architecture would be good enough as others noted. -Dan
participants (5)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Andreas Radke
-
Dan McGee
-
Giovanni Scafora