| 1 |
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The solution is to have people with an actual interest in a specific |
| 4 |
>> architecture determine whether stabilising a package is viable, and |
| 5 |
>> taking sensible action, like dropping stable keywords where applicable. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If these people do not actually exist or are not doing their job by |
| 8 |
> culling the depgraph appropriately, we should really drop a number of |
| 9 |
> archs from "stable" status. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I mostly agree, modulo the comment about people "doing their jobs". |
| 12 |
Arch testing completely sucks. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Having built many stages for an "unstable" arch (mips) has taught me |
| 15 |
one thing: it's awful being unstable-only. There's no end to the |
| 16 |
compilation failures and other such headaches, none of which have |
| 17 |
anything at all to do with the specific architecture. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Short of adding a middle level ("stable, wink wink nudge nudge") where |
| 20 |
things at least compile, I think the current situation is actually |
| 21 |
significantly better than the alternative of dropping them to |
| 22 |
unstable. |
Archives