| 1 |
Tom Wijsman posted on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:43:24 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:13:16 +0400 Mikle Kolyada <zlogene@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> 22.04.2014 21:59, Mike Gilbert пишет: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> > Ok, then the stable keyword is going to get lost when I drop old |
| 9 |
>> > versions. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Vapier can restore stable keywords for newest version if needed, i |
| 12 |
>> think |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Repeating that is a flashing experience for the minor arches users. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Stabilizing on minor arches this way feels more like a regression, than |
| 17 |
> that it is an improvement; the promise for a stable experience can't be |
| 18 |
> fulfilled like that. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Caveat: Subject to Vapier's reply. I can't read minds and could indeed |
| 21 |
be very wrong in my thinking here... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Yes, but... I think stable keywords on such archs must be used |
| 24 |
differently, and by virtue of necessity, mean something else than they |
| 25 |
mean on more mainstream archs. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Consider, on such archs people aren't going to be able to reliably run a |
| 28 |
stable keyword system anyway, because there's simply not enough stable |
| 29 |
keyworded packages to do so. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
In such a situation, then, what is the value/meaning of a stable keyword |
| 32 |
at all? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I'd suggest it is simply this, as adapted from the traditional mainstream |
| 35 |
arch meaning for a situation where running all-stable simply isn't |
| 36 |
possible: |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
A stable keyword on a package for an arch where ~arch must be the norm, |
| 39 |
can only mean, "Yes, this one has actually been verified to work |
| 40 |
reasonably well, without serious known regressions." |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
IOW, in a minor arch normally ~arch keyworded environment, a stable |
| 43 |
keyword, while a system can't require it as a system can on a mainstream |
| 44 |
arch, can still mean: "This version is more tested on this arch than |
| 45 |
others, consider trying it first." |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Additionally, on some packages it /might/ also be a hint: "If you have |
| 48 |
problems traced to a group of packages with this one being one of them, |
| 49 |
look at the other packages first, since this one has more testing than |
| 50 |
the others and thus is less likely to be the problem." |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
With this meaning, on minor archs stable keyworded packages could still |
| 53 |
come and go, without the "flashing" effect mentioned above, because |
| 54 |
stable keywords alone cannot be used to build and maintain the system. |
| 55 |
But stable keywords would still have meaning where they appear, and |
| 56 |
package maintainers shouldn't mess with them, while (unlike mainstream |
| 57 |
archs) still being free to drop last-stable versions without issue, |
| 58 |
exactly /because/ the stable keyword has a someone different meaning in |
| 59 |
this case. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Repeated caveat: This is what I'd take stable keywords to mean on minor |
| 62 |
non-stable archs with current policies. Subject to Vapier's reply |
| 63 |
confirming, modifying or saying I'm all wet. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 67 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 68 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives