| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> What I meant is when I get a stabilization bug for |
| 4 |
> cat-egory/foo-1.2.3 which depends on >=other-cat/bar-1.0.5. The |
| 5 |
> latter is amd64 but not alpha or ~alpha. And it, in turn, has yet |
| 6 |
> more deps in the same vein. Now I have several options: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If bar-1.0.5 isn't alpha or ~alpha, then foo-1.2.3 shouldn't be ~alpha |
| 9 |
either, and repoman should complain about this for any non-dev/exp |
| 10 |
arches. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If it isn't ~alpha to begin with, then it shouldn't be going stable on alpha. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I do agree that at the first bump that triggers the need to drop alpha |
| 15 |
keywords (testing or stable) there should be a keyword request |
| 16 |
submitted to the alpha team to get that sorted out. They could choose |
| 17 |
at that time to do the testing/keywording/etc to get foo-1.2.3 back |
| 18 |
onto ~alpha so that it is ready to be stabilized at the right time (or |
| 19 |
at least with less delay), or they could choose at that time to just |
| 20 |
leave the keywords off in which case they aren't pestered about |
| 21 |
stabilization. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives