| 1 |
On 12/20/2017 06:58 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> There already is an overlay for dying packages, it is called graveyard, |
| 4 |
> but no one is putting things there. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> This email conflates old dying packages with new versions, which are a |
| 7 |
> completely separate issue. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Lack of new versions *is* dying. But I can make a package not-dying in a |
| 11 |
few seconds by merging a PR, so long as you don't expect me to do the |
| 12 |
(relatively high) level of QA required for ~arch. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> If a new version of a package is known to cause wide scale breakage, it |
| 16 |
> goes in package.mask until the breakage is resolved. Otherwise, putting |
| 17 |
> it in ~ is fine. I don't see the need for another level of keywords. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The quality of ~arch is its own worst enemy; these days, stable packages |
| 20 |
are just old ~arch packages. Users and developers expect ~arch to work, |
| 21 |
and we have no real policy or documentation stating that it won't. Many |
| 22 |
people will tell you that ~arch works better than stable, because it |
| 23 |
gets fixed faster. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The new level of keyword would avoid screwing all of those ~arch users |
| 26 |
at once, by not suddenly murdering the quality of their tree. From the |
| 27 |
outset, the new level of keyword would have to have a description like |
| 28 |
"only use this if you are stupid" to fulfill its intended role. |
Archives