Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Policy for late/slow stabilizations
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:21:57
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations by Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:43:30 +0100 as excerpted:

> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:22:33 +0300 > Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: >> > Which does Gentoo care about more: slightly increased convenience for >> > most developers, or considerably increased inconvenience for users of >> > minority archs? >> > >> I don't follow you. Increased convenience just for the devs? How? > > Not having to keep old versions around for a few archs is slightly more > convenient for most people. > > Having to deal with dropped keywords is a huge inconvenience for users > on minority archs.
As already stated on the other sub-threads, that's not the point at all. Rather, it's a simple matter of letting an arch's stable tree dynamically and realistically adjust to the level of arch support they have. If the stable set gets small enough, it's probably time to officially reduce the arch status to testing tree support only, not security supported, etc. But well before that point, it's likely a core package set can be maintained at stable, with perhaps certain arch-usage specific area stable support as well, while still being unrealistic to try to keep a stable version of (nearly) all at-one-point-known-to-work packages available. If the arch support simply isn't there, it really is better to have that reflected in the size of the stable set, such that users actually know that and know what's being actively supported on their arch and what isn't, than to try to fake it, which is what's going on now. It's not a question of more convenience vs less, but of having arch keyword status reflect arch support reality. That said, if there's not already a simple way to get the info out of VCS (perhaps there is, I don't know), archs may wish to maintain a list of packages and versions that once were stable, along with comments on specific destabilization reason (it didn't work with gcc-vX on that arch, for instance) if known, so it'll be somewhat easier to expand stable coverage again if we happen to pickup a few new devs with a strong interest in the arch. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman