1 |
Mark Loeser wrote: |
2 |
> Jose Luis Rivero <yoswink@g.o> said: |
3 |
>> Mark, I think you are looking at the problem only with the ebuild |
4 |
>> maintainer hat put on. We have other players in our business, being one of |
5 |
>> them the users. This policy would bring too many problems to them so .. |
6 |
>> nono by my side. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I purposely did this. I like the proposal, but I also know that it has |
9 |
> a lot of problems. It was better than sending something out asking what |
10 |
> people think though. |
11 |
|
12 |
Indeed. |
13 |
|
14 |
>> I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower, |
15 |
>> hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way |
16 |
>> (asking for new devs, buying hardware, etc) go for mark it as experimental |
17 |
>> and drop all stable keywords. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> This is one way to resolve it. We need to establish how an arch gets |
20 |
> pushed to "experimental" and how maintainers need to deal with that |
21 |
> though. An example is removing the only version of a package that works |
22 |
> on that specific arch, is this a problem if the arch is declared to be |
23 |
> experimental? |
24 |
> |
25 |
> If this is the path we want to go down, lets set up some rules for how |
26 |
> to handle experimental archs and what it means to go from |
27 |
> stable->experimental and experimental->stable. |
28 |
|
29 |
Now we are thinking the same, brother. Clear procedures and rules for |
30 |
moving an arch to experimental and what keyword policy applies to |
31 |
experimental. Also, what is needed to allow an experimental arch to |
32 |
start its stable branch and be sure we are not going to be moving from |
33 |
experimental <-> stable every month. |
34 |
|
35 |
If someone want to start thinking more seriously about this, count me in. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Jose Luis Rivero <yoswink@g.o> |
39 |
Gentoo/Alpha Gentoo/Doc |