Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote:
>>> Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or
>>> exp. I can't see how we can implement something between
>>> stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may not be
>>> stable? If this is the case, then I believe ~arch is more preferred.
>>
>> I haven't read much into it, but Fedora has a concept of "Secondary
>> Architectures." I think it would make sense if we could keep stable
>> keywords for them, but not prevent maintainers from needing to wait on
>> them to stabilize other packages.
>
> I don't see how that would work. You can't remove older versions
> unless a newer one is stabilized, or you'd break the tree.

Sort-of.  You'd break it in that users would have to accept ~arch to
keep that package, or remove it.  It is really no different than
dropping stable keywords which forces them to do the same thing,
except that you're doing it one package at a time.

You could impose a time limit to respond to the STABLEREQ prior to
removal (30-60 days or something).

I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages
might still keep them.  That might actually be the right balance - if
the arch teams focus on just system or other important packages they
might be able to find the time to keep up rather than trying to boil
the ocean.

Rich