Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: williamh@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:54:42
Message-Id: 20140115105415.5df3cdac@pomiot.lan
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by William Hubbs
1 Dnia 2014-01-14, o godz. 15:37:19
2 William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> napisał(a):
4 > I want comments wrt two ideas:
5 >
6 > 1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on arch's
7 > they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arch teams, but I
8 > think it would be good to formalize it.
10 I think we'd use more feedback from the 'other' arch teams before
11 agreeing on this. Some arches may have a pretty tricky issues that
12 could affect stabilization but which average developer may be not aware
13 of. Maybe it'd be good if each arch team had a wiki page explaining
14 the testing process for their arch.
16 We should also make it clear that the developer is supposed to test
17 the package on a pure stable system to avoid misunderstandings.
19 > 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2].
20 >
21 > [2]
23 Honestly, this sounds like a very bad idea to me. Even on the minor
24 architectures.
26 TLDR: users will end up running unsupported mixed-arch systems
27 and stabilizing the package again sometime wouldn't make much sense.
29 Dropping the stable keyword on a package means that user either:
31 1) has to remove the package and either find an alternative or lose
32 particular features completely. And unlike with regular package.mask,
33 he won't get any tips from us. In fact, this policy makes it possible
34 to kill, say, the last graphical word processor on the arch.
36 2) has to add package.accept_keywords entry for the package. Which
37 means turning a pure stable system into an unsupported mixed-keyword
38 system.
40 Considering portage behavior, I think that 2) is much more likely. Now,
41 the keyword may be added per-version or per-package. If it's added
42 per-version, user simply ends up sticking to another single version
43 until he thinks of upgrading the package manually.
45 If it's added per-package, the keyword usually persists on the user's
46 system. When we bring the stable keywords to the package again, user
47 would have to notice that and remove his override. How likely is that
48 going to happen?
50 So, in the end once we remove stable keyword from a package, most users
51 add ~arch keyword and future stable keyword on the package becomes
52 meaningless.
54 I'd rather go for removing stable keywords from all packages. This
55 would at least make turning the architecture back stable easy for users.
57 --
58 Best regards,
59 Michał Górny


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>