Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

[Richard Freeman]

Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
> I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower,
> hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way
> (asking for new devs, buying hardware, etc) go for mark it as
> experimental and drop all stable keywords.

How is that better?  Instead of dropping one stable package you'd end up 
dropping all of them.  A user could accept ~arch and get the same 
behavior without any need to mark every other package in the tree 
unstable.  An arch could put a note to that effect in their installation 
handbook.  The user could then choose between a very narrow core of 
stable packages or a wider universe of experimental ones.

I guess the question is whether package maintainers should be forced to 
maintain packages that are outdated by a significant period of time. 
Suppose something breaks a package that is 3 versions behind stable on 
all archs but one (where it is the current stable).  Should the package 
maintainer be required to fix it, rather than just delete it?  I suspect 
that the maintainer would be more likely to just leave it broken, which 
doesn't exactly leave things better-off for the end users.

I'm sure the maintainers of qt/baselayout/coreutils/etc will exercise 
discretion on removing stable versions of these packages.  However, for 
some obscure utility that next-to-nobody uses, does it really hurt to 
move from stable back to unstable if the arch maintainers can't keep up?

I guess it comes down to the driving issues.  How big a problem are 
stale packages (with the recent movement of a few platforms to 
experimental, is this an already-solved problem?)?  How big of a problem 
do arch teams see keeping up with 30-days as (or maybe 60/90)?  What are 
the practical (rather than theoretical) ramifications?