| 1 |
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:13 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I don't think that's what was being proposed, though. The question was |
| 3 |
> > really the old complaint about slow architectures; the "-* arch" |
| 4 |
> > solution sounds like the most reasonable definition of "dropping" |
| 5 |
> > keywords, in the absence of AT communication otherwise. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Dropping keywords and specifying -* are a world apart of each other. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The former means that it is not ready for wide stable or testing users, |
| 10 |
> the latter means that it has been tested to not work at all; |
| 11 |
> furthermore, we need to explicitly specify which arches in that case. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
The complaint is slow to stable arches - by specifying "-* arch" it |
| 14 |
would signify that ONLY that arch uses that version of the ebuild - and |
| 15 |
it would be up to the arch team to remove it once they've stabled the |
| 16 |
new version - and considering the complaint is only about slow arches, |
| 17 |
there's nothing additional to specify in there - it's REMOVING arches |
| 18 |
that have stabled a newer version already, so they are unaffected. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
On the other hand, you're suggesting that we don't actually bother with |
| 21 |
stabling things - or actually testing that things are properly stable, |
| 22 |
allowing anyone to decide when something is stable, whether they have |
| 23 |
access to the hardware to actually test that it works. You and a few |
| 24 |
others keep talking in the theoretical while I've shown an actual |
| 25 |
problem but you and the others conveniently ignore ACTUAL problems in |
| 26 |
favor of your possible problems. Please stop. |
Archives