Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Keywordreqs and slacking arch teams
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 07:09:44
1 Hello,
3 The Python team ends up filing a lot of keywordreqs due to new
4 dependencies. Many of them end up open for many months, and start
5 listing obsolete package versions. Then an arch team wakes up...
6 and adds keywords to a version that's supposed to be removed already.
7 Or complains that the package list is outdated.
9 I think it's generally a reasonable assumption that keywordreq should be
10 applied to the newest version of a package, unless the keywordreq
11 explicitly says otherwise (in the comment). It's not helpful that
12 stable-bot requires us to fill specific versions here.
14 I don't think it's fair to expect package maintainers to keep package
15 versions up-to-date in this case. I can take the blame if the package
16 list becomes outdated, say, in 1 months. If the arch team can't keyword
17 something in 6 months, I blame them, and I believe it should be their
18 responsibility to update the keywordreq.
20 Otherwise, we're creating a silly workflow where I keep putting
21 an effort into keeping the keywordreq up-to-date, hoping that one day
22 arch teams might actually act upon it.
24 How can we improve this?
26 --
27 Best regards,
28 Michał Górny


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keywordreqs and slacking arch teams Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o>