| 1 |
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 15:46:23 +0100 |
| 2 |
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > But, I guess there are two major cases: |
| 5 |
> > - Versions that cannot be stabilized due they not working on that |
| 6 |
> > arch any longer |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It's probably a good idea to package.mask the affected versions on the |
| 9 |
> arch profile(s) (with references to bug reports, and so on) so all |
| 10 |
> users of that profile get to see it. Treat it like a "last rites" |
| 11 |
> process. Currently that's the only way for users to find out when and |
| 12 |
> why a package becomes unsupported on a given profile, and it should |
| 13 |
> work well enough. Give them thirty days to respond or become arch team |
| 14 |
> members or ATs or just give the nod to an arch developer to say "it |
| 15 |
> works" - it may even lead to actual stabilisation of a newer ebuild. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > - Versions that are not stabilized because arch team doesn't have |
| 18 |
> > the man power to do that. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> As above, package.mask would be a good intermediate solution, |
| 21 |
> communicating the problem to the arch users for, say, thirty days. Of |
| 22 |
> course it may just delay solving the problem when a new set of |
| 23 |
> stabilisations is due and again no one responds. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
+1, see an example that I wrote earlier at the bottom of this mail: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90083/match=Consider%20this%20instead |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
With kind regards, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 33 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 36 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 37 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives