1 |
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:47:49AM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
3 |
> > Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is |
4 |
> > marked stabled for their arch, but this package is quite old, and they fail to |
5 |
> > stabilize a new version, we ( as maintainers ) can't drop the very old |
6 |
> > ( and obsolete ) version of this package because we somehow will break |
7 |
> > the stable tree for these arches. How should we act in this case? |
8 |
> > Keep the old version around forever just to say that "hey, they do have |
9 |
> > a stable version for our exotic arch". |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I'd propose waiting a bit longer than 30 days.. Maybe 90 days, and then |
12 |
> just drop the old ebuild. These arches will slowly lose stable keywords |
13 |
> until their stable tree gets to a size that they can manage. And |
14 |
> everyone will be winners. That said, when dropping the old keywords, you |
15 |
> have to be careful to drop the stable keyword on all dependencies too so |
16 |
> as to not drop break the tree for them. |
17 |
> |
18 |
When dropping an old *stable* ebuild, which in most cases this will be the |
19 |
only stable ebuild that these arches will have for this packages, the |
20 |
next world update will be ugly since there will be no *stable * |
21 |
candidates for that package anymore. In this case, stable users will |
22 |
start filling package.keywords leading to ~testing migration. So I am |
23 |
not sure if this is the correct approach to deal with this but I can't |
24 |
think of anything else |
25 |
> -- |
26 |
> Olivier Crête |
27 |
> tester@g.o |
28 |
> Gentoo Developer |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
34 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
35 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |