| 1 |
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Having built many stages for an "unstable" arch (mips) has taught me |
| 3 |
> one thing: it's awful being unstable-only. There's no end to the |
| 4 |
> compilation failures and other such headaches, none of which have |
| 5 |
> anything at all to do with the specific architecture. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Short of adding a middle level ("stable, wink wink nudge nudge") where |
| 8 |
> things at least compile, I think the current situation is actually |
| 9 |
> significantly better than the alternative of dropping them to |
| 10 |
> unstable. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
In that case, "doing your job" would mean dropping stable keywords on |
| 13 |
everything but the bare necessities, and refusing to stabilize |
| 14 |
packages outside of that group without good cause. |
Archives