Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Olivier CrĂȘte" <tester@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:48:10
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations by Markos Chandras
1 On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
2 > Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is
3 > marked stabled for their arch, but this package is quite old, and they fail to
4 > stabilize a new version, we ( as maintainers ) can't drop the very old
5 > ( and obsolete ) version of this package because we somehow will break
6 > the stable tree for these arches. How should we act in this case?
7 > Keep the old version around forever just to say that "hey, they do have
8 > a stable version for our exotic arch".
10 I'd propose waiting a bit longer than 30 days.. Maybe 90 days, and then
11 just drop the old ebuild. These arches will slowly lose stable keywords
12 until their stable tree gets to a size that they can manage. And
13 everyone will be winners. That said, when dropping the old keywords, you
14 have to be careful to drop the stable keyword on all dependencies too so
15 as to not drop break the tree for them.
17 --
18 Olivier CrĂȘte
19 tester@g.o
20 Gentoo Developer


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o>