Re: [gentoo-project] Dropping unstable packages on minor archs

On 10/24/13 10:02 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> The situation causing issues is a different one.
>
> 1. Tree contains libfoo-1.
> 2.  Maintainer introduces libfoo-2, dropping keywords due to
> significant changes.
> 3.  Major archs keyword libfoo-2.  Tree is generally updated to work
> with libfoo-2.
> 4.  Maintainer wants to drop libfoo-1, but libfoo-2 is not keyworded
> on all the minor archs libfoo-1 is.
> 5.  Maintainer logs KEYWORDREQ for libfoo-1, and it is ignored.
>
> This leaves us with several options:
> a. Don't let the maintainer remove libfoo-1.
>    1.  Maintainer continues to care for libfoo-1 - extra work.

This can be especially hard if upstreams start removing support for
libfoo-1, or removing support for their package versions that depend on
or even require libfoo-1.

>    2.  Maintainer is required to care for libfoo-1 but doesn't - complaints/etc.

Exactly - being "required" to maintain something doesn't make that
person actually maintain it.

>    3.  Maintainer gets tired of dealing with QA and stops maintaining
> libfoo entirely.  Now major arch users are at a loss, and the minor
> arch users are no better off.

The worst of both worlds. I hope that doesn't happen often but yeah,
people should realize this is a very plausible reaction to such pressures.

> b. Let the maintainer remove libfoo-1.  Minor arch users have large
> numbers of packages break, have cascading keyword removal (no better,
> really).
>
> I'm open to suggestions for other options if anybody has them.  I'm
> suggesting to allow the option of b.  Maintainers can still choose to
> do 1a, and minor arch users are really no worse off than if they were
> to do 1b/c.

Totally agreed. Maybe last rite hard mask libfoo-1 before removal to
"give people time" to start maintaining it. It'll probably make it even
more clear that there is no one to do that.

Paweł