Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:56:55
Message-Id: 20100627155436.GA19598@Eternity
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations by "Olivier Crête"
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:47:49AM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: > > Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is > > marked stabled for their arch, but this package is quite old, and they fail to > > stabilize a new version, we ( as maintainers ) can't drop the very old > > ( and obsolete ) version of this package because we somehow will break > > the stable tree for these arches. How should we act in this case? > > Keep the old version around forever just to say that "hey, they do have > > a stable version for our exotic arch". > > I'd propose waiting a bit longer than 30 days.. Maybe 90 days, and then > just drop the old ebuild. These arches will slowly lose stable keywords > until their stable tree gets to a size that they can manage. And > everyone will be winners. That said, when dropping the old keywords, you > have to be careful to drop the stable keyword on all dependencies too so > as to not drop break the tree for them. >
When dropping an old *stable* ebuild, which in most cases this will be the only stable ebuild that these arches will have for this packages, the next world update will be ugly since there will be no *stable * candidates for that package anymore. In this case, stable users will start filling package.keywords leading to ~testing migration. So I am not sure if this is the correct approach to deal with this but I can't think of anything else
> -- > Olivier Crête > tester@g.o > Gentoo Developer
-- Markos Chandras (hwoarang) Gentoo Linux Developer Web:


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations "Olivier Crête" <tester@g.o>