Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:06:21
Message-Id: 52DBB1A1.40300@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by William Hubbs
1 William Hubbs schrieb:
2 > When you say "drop keywords" do you mean:
3 >
4 > 1) revert the old version back to ~arch or
5 > 2) remove the old version.
6 >
7 > As a maintainer, I would rather do 2, because I do not want to backport
8 > fixes to the old version.
9 >
10 > William
11 >
12
13 With 1) users would still be using newer versions with ~arch keyword
14 except with explicit mask on newer versions, so keeping the old versions
15 doesnt make much sense.
16
17 With 2), there may be additional one-time cost for the maintainer (since
18 he should check with reserve dependencies first to avoid broken
19 dependency trees), but afterwards this solution should mean an adjusted
20 amount of stable packages for each arch and no permanent additional work
21 for the maintainer.
22
23 --
24
25 Thomas Sachau
26 Gentoo Linux Developer

Attachments

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