| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 12/13/2012 12:48 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> But there is one big ass but. We have some packages that were |
| 7 |
> stabilised last time few year back and they provide multiple testing |
| 8 |
> versions on top of that. |
| 9 |
> Who is the one to deterimine which one should go stable and which to |
| 10 |
get rid of? |
| 11 |
> We had some humble tryouts to create automatic stabilisation request |
| 12 |
> which didn't turn out exactly well as most of the maintainers had to |
| 13 |
> actually do more work ;-) |
| 14 |
It is always up to the maintainer/herd as to when a package goes stable. |
| 15 |
But to keep ebuilds for ex. gcc around for over 5 years is just insane. |
| 16 |
Keep packages around that have been replaced with a newer package is |
| 17 |
just insane. Yes the newer package has to move to stable first, but we |
| 18 |
should be cleaning the tree up to only support what we really and truly |
| 19 |
are gonna support. Do we really want to try and use gcc-2.95 to build |
| 20 |
kernel-3.7? I highly doubt it would even work. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Long story short for to have some sane policy wrt amounts of the |
| 25 |
> stable packages. Testing packages can't be handled easily by some rule |
| 26 |
> because the development differs everywhere. |
| 27 |
> Packages should provide only one stable version per branch/slot by |
| 28 |
default. |
| 29 |
> Exception for this rule are base-system packages where requirement is |
| 30 |
> to provide two stable versions at any given time. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
Well there are exceptions to every rule, it is the ideal to get a |
| 34 |
discussion to make a better decision as to when a revision of a package |
| 35 |
should be removed and no longer supported. Well many slots can be useful |
| 36 |
for many packages, there has to be a time we start removing them older |
| 37 |
slots that just are not practical any longer. |
| 38 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 40 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQyiWcAAoJEKDMw7q00Ii0yyAIAJqgILtFzx8VSm8ULXP4vEgv |
| 43 |
eEUu6eOO30QUnTb7aR8mYfY62PFPyKSOX6+Juvwo+HlMnJlCA256qopGuwY9zXeq |
| 44 |
h7tWf3dzbkZTNwLAiVgCeifxGvcBwyqQKcbk4NuY4S1eYAV3USkNncZ6t2FANx96 |
| 45 |
eCw9rN/ZAbj6qp8PRE8/e+dSi5tx3JW3/WUZzpdTFE0PGDm7qIPTRgLhsn89cPy1 |
| 46 |
619cwqhzG4+VQanyWnXf6FPoo6fhDWGMirXQe+5TV7M8wpXx7nS/QpiaONIxLn9W |
| 47 |
/I+aVQXEVld1dWrw44YGhZX3kdBlnm5ceyOGm+9dXTkXxYL1OVmU5b8VAYP0sOo= |
| 48 |
=ceAZ |
| 49 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives