Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>, Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 20:05:53
Message-Id: CAGfcS_mvm8X-v_kv5DUwnEVBpX5fGxFUvZgOJdhEOo30LA9Q_g@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree by William Hubbs
1 On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:01 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
2 > This works unless you are talking about packages in @system.
3 > I do see core packages on these arches also languish in ~ for months
4 > with open stable requests.
5 >
6 > The only way to handle one of those would be to remove the old version
7 > and let their deptree break until they catch up.
8 >
9
10 In terms of direct impact, I agree. Though, I think the hope would be
11 that if enough non-@system packages get pruned they would have more
12 time for the @system ones.
13
14 The concept of a deptree also breaks down with @system since we tend
15 to not specify these dependencies explicitly.
16
17 --
18 Rich