| 1 |
Brian Harring posted on Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:34:43 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 07:31:10PM +1300, Alistair Bush wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > On Saturday 27 of March 2010 21:58:41 William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > |
| 6 |
>> > It's really freaking silly to wait months for stabilization of some |
| 7 |
>> > random php/perl library that's known to work. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Have you ever just considered closing the stabilization bug and |
| 10 |
>> ignoring the arch. If they take so long to mark your packages as |
| 11 |
>> stable why do you care about them enough to even attempt to stabilize |
| 12 |
>> anything on their arch. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> If the pkg isn't a leaf node, you wind up keeping older and older |
| 15 |
> versions lingering across multiple pkgs to keep it from breaking stable. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> This is assuming that it's still heavily frowned upon to remove the only |
| 18 |
> stable version available for a non-dead arch... ~harring |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
What I've seen maintainers (report) doing before, when they give up on a(n |
| 21 |
non-experimental) arch, is keep the last stable version for that arch |
| 22 |
around, but remove all other keywords, and reassign all bugs for that |
| 23 |
version to the arch in question, with a (perhaps boilerplate) comment on |
| 24 |
the bug to the effect that said arch refuses to stabilize any further, |
| 25 |
thus the only reason said version remains in the tree, so the bug is |
| 26 |
theirs to deal with or not deal with as they choose. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I've always wondered what happened to such bugs after that, but never |
| 29 |
enough to actually go find some to see... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 33 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 34 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives