1 |
Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Mark Loeser wrote: |
3 |
> > Removing Stable Ebuilds |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues |
6 |
> > preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older |
7 |
> > version even if it is the most recent stable version for a particular arch. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> What if this would break deps or it's a very common package for example |
10 |
> belonging to the set of system packages? |
11 |
|
12 |
Then the maintainer moans and does nothing. I guess that's where the |
13 |
"MAY" part from above comes in. Policy should not be an excuse to stop |
14 |
thinking. And if i break a user system when i drop my stable keywords, |
15 |
IMHO i'm violating the 'work as pleasently and efficiently as possible' |
16 |
bit of our philosophy. |
17 |
|
18 |
It isn't that we have arch teams denying ebuilds their blessing because |
19 |
they're evil. Maybe they're overworked, maybe they even have a real |
20 |
life. Or maybe they have stated that your ebuild has QA issues (as |
21 |
Ferris did), which should be noted and fixed by the maintainer. |
22 |
|
23 |
So bottom-line: i'm very much in favour of your solution to question #1. |
24 |
And i'd like to stress the "automatic" bit. Yes, we can get access to |
25 |
tinderboxes. But last i looked, this involved tracking down the person |
26 |
responsible for it, asking for access and doing everything you need to |
27 |
get your package to compile. Well, i'm lazy, so i didn't do it. |
28 |
|
29 |
Automatic tinderbox testing would very much help in the process. Maybe |
30 |
someone can write a script so that once a maintainer opens/gives his OK |
31 |
to a stable bug, automatic testing could be started and the results |
32 |
posted back to the bug? |
33 |
|
34 |
After the timeframe (30 days? 60? I don't know, and it's not important |
35 |
at this point) maintainers could move to stable their package themself |
36 |
IF the automatic tests indicate success AND no arch member has spoken |
37 |
up. |
38 |
|
39 |
just my $0.02 |
40 |
-- |
41 |
Regards, Matti Bickel |
42 |
Signed/Encrypted email preferred (key 4849EC6C) |