Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:28:57
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by Tom Wijsman
1 On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:47:58 +0100
2 Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote:
3 > Maybe we can let the package managers only perceive it as keyworded or
4 > stable if all of its dependencies are keyworded or stable on the
5 > architecture that the user runs. Then we can have repoman just ignore
6 > checking dependencies' keywords when we keyword or stabilize them.
7 >
8 > Not sure how implementable this idea is though...
10 It's going to hurt for four reasons that I can think of right now.
12 Firstly, things you think are "obviously portable" sometimes aren't.
14 Secondly, users already get confused by "stable use masks". This is
15 going to be even worse: users aren't going to understand why a noarch
16 package isn't available for them.
18 Thirdly, you have to decide how to deal with long chains and cycles in
19 noarch dependencies.
21 Fourthly, the interaction with || deps is an awful mess.
23 --
24 Ciaran McCreesh


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>