| 1 |
On 28/01/14 11:33 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 2 |
> Here's a proposal that may address concerns from the long "rfc: |
| 3 |
> revisiting our stabilization policy" thread. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> It seems at least one of the problems is that with old ebuilds being |
| 6 |
> stable on slow arches but not the more recent ebuilds, it is a |
| 7 |
> maintenance burden to keep supporting the old ebuilds even on fast |
| 8 |
> arches where it's still stable. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Why not allow maintainers to drop redundant stable and even ~arch |
| 11 |
> keywords from their packages? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Then these old ebuilds will stay with _only_ slow arch keywords. If they |
| 14 |
> were working back then, they will continue to work now, since there are |
| 15 |
> not that many changes to break things as opposed to faster-moving arches. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> What do you think? Please let me know if I should clarify this. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Paweł |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I thought there was a general consensus that only the latest stable on a |
| 23 |
given arch is considered actually-stable. |
Archives