Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees

[Ferris McCormick]

On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 00:28 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:49:22PM -0700, Jason Wever wrote:
> > Please triple check what you want to commit and verify that you don't do
> > any of the following (which are punishable by death):
> >
> > 1) remove the last ebuild that is keyworded for a given arch, especially
> >    when resulting in broken dependencies.
> >
> > 2) remove the last stable ebuild for an architecture
> >
> > 3) remove the last testing ebuild for an architecture when there is no
> >    stable ebuild available after the removal
>
> To generalize on Francesco's email, how long should developers wait for
> minority arches to mark stuff stable, after a security bug, and then a
> reminder more than 4 months later? 5 months of no response from the
> arches says something is wrong on their side.
>
I might be mistaken, but I believe sparc responds pretty quickly to
security bugs, either by taking the requested action or by explaining
why the requested action is impossible (i.e., build problems).

> I think that usage statistics might point out that there are nobody even
> using these specific ebuilds that are proposed for removal.
>

Regards,
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)