Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:46:13
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Rich Freeman
1 On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 09:52 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
2 > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o> wrote:
3 > > It's not necessarily the STABLEREQs stopping, some of the issues are (at
4 > > least on some arches!) that some of the unstable software doesn't quite
5 > > work properly anymore, and we are failing at communicating. And in
6 > > those cases, we on the arch teams should definitely be pointing this
7 > > out, and filing bugs so that the issues can be sorted.
8 >
9 > Well, if the package or some version of it doesn't work at all, you
10 > can always mask it on the arch or drop keywords. The arch team
11 > doesn't need permission to do this stuff - the keywords and profiles
12 > really "belong" to the arch team, and we just allow maintainers to do
13 > their best job with them to make the job of the arch team easier.
14 >
16 Right, but, afaik, an "unstable" ebuild can go away at any point in
17 time, and then we'd be back in this same place - newer ebuilds are
18 around, older working ones are gone...
20 > Obviously if you actually want the problem fixed that requires
21 > bugs/etc. But you don't need a bug to drop a keyword and at least
22 > make it clear that the package doesn't work.
23 >
25 Right, and this goes as a point towards splitting out the arm keywords,
26 and maybe I'll bring it up at the next ARM team meeting... I don't think
27 it would get much traction, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to at least
28 throw it out there and see what sticks.
30 > Rich
31 >