Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: dropping redundant stable keywords
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 06:12:30
Message-Id: 20140203062524.GA7467@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords by Rich Freeman
1 Rich Freeman wrote:
2 > Jeroen Roovers wrote:
3 > > "Paweł Hajdan" wrote:
4 > >
5 > >> Why not allow maintainers to drop redundant stable and even ~arch
6 > >> keywords from their packages?
7 > >
8 > > This is standard practice already.
9 >
10 > If there is still pain then maybe we need to re-communicate this, or
11 > clarify.
12 >
13 > To me if a package is in the tree and is outdated, but kept for only
14 > the benefit of a few lagging archs, then maintainers can close bugs as
15 > WONTFIX if they don't pertain to newer versions. If that is the case
16 > then there is no cost to keeping the old packages around.
17 >
18 > The main concern is around maintenance burden. The only way to reduce
19 > maintenance burden is to do less maintenance (I haven't heard any
20 > suggestions that will somehow make bugs go away). If maintainers are
21 > doing more maintenance than they are required to do, then simply
22 > reinforcing existing policy could solve the problem. We just need to
23 > align around expectations.
24
25 Closing those bugs as WONTFIX is more work, and in some cases the bugs
26 would be justified, if the user is on the slow arch in question. The
27 arguments and headaches at the user, bug and AT sides are causing more
28 work (or detracting from real work) too.
29
30 I don't think it should be general policy to drop stable keywords; as
31 someone said, the latest stable in the tree /is/ the stable one, and
32 there's no real point in adding work, *unless* the maintainer
33 actually wants to drop the ebuild, but cannot due to the holdup with
34 slower archs.
35
36 Just keep the old ebuilds as useful metadata, subject to the usual
37 version-control cycle, but iff it's causing you problems and you want
38 to drop it, mark it with: "-* slowe rarch" so we can script off it and
39 automate bug-handling etc. so your life is easier, as well as the
40 archs in question (and their users.)
41
42 Regards,
43 steveL.
44 --
45 #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: dropping redundant stable keywords Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>