| 1 |
Am Montag, 13. April 2020, 20:49:45 CEST schrieb Andreas K. Hüttel: |
| 2 |
> > > [Maybe someone who actually does slow-arch work should speak up. Anyone |
| 3 |
> > > out |
| 4 |
> > > there still reading g-dev?] |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I'm lost. The original definition said that this state is for arches |
| 7 |
> > that use stable only on subset of packages needed for stage building. |
| 8 |
> > Why would people file streqs for other packages then? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Shrug. I'm not going to fight here for anything. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Just my experience after some arches lost stable status was that these arch |
| 13 |
> people still wanted to get CC'ed in stabilization requests. If only to keep |
| 14 |
> track. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I would very much welcome if these arches would be CC'ed on anything that was |
| 17 |
previously stable for them, i.e. nattka '*'. I'm fighting the dependency tree |
| 18 |
on hppa and stable to get them back to stable with a managable set of |
| 19 |
packages. I had at least 2 packges over the weekend that lost their stable |
| 20 |
keywords in a "cleanup old versions" after a previous stable request where one |
| 21 |
of these arches was forgotten. Luckily this wasn't too late now, if this |
| 22 |
happens after a while it is a nightmare to fight that back. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And when we are at it, please don't forget these arches when doing ALLARCHES |
| 25 |
stabilization either. I hope that nattka will actually improve both |
| 26 |
situations. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Eike |
Archives