On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 00:25 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:59:17PM -0600, Jory A. Pratt wrote: > > Mark Loeser wrote: > > > Basically what I'm looking for here is an easy to understand explanation > > > of > > > what textrels are, why they are bad, and why they should hold back > > > marking a > > > package stable. The only information I've been able to find states that > > > they > > > could cause a performance hit, but this doesn't seem to warrant banning > > > them > > > completely in my eyes. > > > > > > Getting a clear cut policy on exactly what issues should hold a package > > > back > > > from being marked stable is what I'm looking for. Issues like textrels, > > > executable stacks, etc is what I'm looking for to be defined and > > > explained why > > > we are to always avoid them. This should be added to existing > > > documentation > > > policy so it is somewhere for new devs to know about, and existing devs to > > > have for a reference. > > > > Only problem I see with this is binary packages. We can not control > > upstream binaries as everyone is aware of. So when does it become safe > > to override stable packages that have texrel's and executable stacks? > > no idea what you mean by "override", but here's a crazy idea ... ask > upstream to fix the issues. for example, we just reported executable > stacks with the ut2004 game and Ryan of epicgames was so kind as to > fix it up for us. some upstream peeps dont even know about these sort > of things until you point them out.
Let me take that back again. This is resolved on amd64, but not on x86. There's 2 binaries. This also explains why I didn't see the error and closed the bug, I'm on amd64, whereas the bug reporter is on x86. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
