| 1 |
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:22:33 +0300 |
| 2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Which does Gentoo care about more: slightly increased convenience |
| 4 |
> > for most developers, or considerably increased inconvenience for |
| 5 |
> > users of minority archs? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> I don't follow you. Increased convenience just for the devs? How? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Not having to keep old versions around for a few archs is slightly more |
| 10 |
convenient for most people. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Having to deal with dropped keywords is a huge inconvenience for users |
| 13 |
on minority archs. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> All I want is to have packages stabled ~60 days after the initial |
| 16 |
> commit on tree instead of ~5 months. If arches can't do that then I |
| 17 |
> don't want to mark that obsolete package stable at all. Whats the |
| 18 |
> point? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The point is for users of minor archs to have something that works. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Also I would prefer to be able to drop ancient stable packages |
| 23 |
> from the tree even if that means that there wont be any other stable |
| 24 |
> version for this package to use. I 'd prefer a working tiny stable |
| 25 |
> tree than a huge ancient one |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The problem with that is that presumably some minority arch users are |
| 28 |
using the packages you'd be dropping. When that happens, dropped |
| 29 |
keywords are a considerable cost to them. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Which is the decision to make: make things very difficult for minority |
| 32 |
arch users, who get screwed over royally every time keywords are |
| 33 |
dropped, or make things slightly more inconvenient for developers, who |
| 34 |
have to keep some things around for longer. It's all down to whether |
| 35 |
you think happy users are more important than happy developers. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives