| 1 |
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:40:26AM +0200, cilly wrote: |
| 2 |
> In my opinion, ebuilds are removed too soon, i.e. if an ebuild gets |
| 3 |
> updated the older ebuild gets removed in the same turn. In my |
| 4 |
> opinion, it is better to keep the older ebuild around for a while |
| 5 |
> since if there are some bugs in the newer ebuild, users are able to |
| 6 |
> downgrade easily. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> My suggestion is to set up a guidline similar like it exists for |
| 9 |
> marking the ebuilds as stable (4 weeks). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Probably, a time period for removing ebuilds would be nice to have, I |
| 12 |
> think 2 weeks would be reasonable if there aren't any known bugs of |
| 13 |
> the newer ebuild. Of course, if the newer ebuild has bugs, which do |
| 14 |
> not exist in the older ebuild the older ebuild should still be kept |
| 15 |
> to let the user be able to choose, which version they want. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> What do you think? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I think that setting arbitrary guidelines that try to rule every |
| 20 |
situation is just *plain* wrong. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Some of the packages I maintain are better removed when a new |
| 23 |
maintenance version is released. And I plan to keep it that way :) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
As usual, deep known of the package you are removing and common sense is |
| 26 |
way better than guidelines 'to rule them all'. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
- ferdy |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín |
| 32 |
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 |
Archives