| 1 |
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:02:46 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Stuart Herbert" <stuart.herbert@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> 1) Leave the older versions in the tree, even though they are |
| 5 |
> insecure and possibly/probably no longer supported by package |
| 6 |
> maintainers. This keeps minority arches happy at the expense of the |
| 7 |
> larger group of package maintainers. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
How exactly does this affect package maintainers, apart from the |
| 10 |
cosmetic problems of having an old ebuild lying around? As far as I can |
| 11 |
see, it doesn't affect the maintenance burden, since if the arch still |
| 12 |
using the old version needs a fix present in the newer versions they |
| 13 |
can just keyword one of those, and if the fix isn't present it doesn't |
| 14 |
much matter which ebuild(s) get it applied. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The original request not to remove an arch's latest stable ebuild seems |
| 17 |
reasonable enough to me -- we're not asking package maintainers to |
| 18 |
support or update things that they wouldn't otherwise, merely not to be |
| 19 |
so hasty about removing them from the tree since they might still be of |
| 20 |
use to someone. |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives