Jose Luis Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Mark Loeser wrote: >> Removing Stable Ebuilds >> If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical >> issues >> preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an >> older >> version even if it is the most recent stable version for a particular >> arch. > > Mark, I think you are looking at the problem only with the ebuild > maintainer hat put on. We have other players in our business, being one of > them the users. This policy would bring too many problems to them so .. > nono by my side.
I purposely did this. I like the proposal, but I also know that it has a lot of problems. It was better than sending something out asking what people think though. > I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower, > hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way > (asking for new devs, buying hardware, etc) go for mark it as experimental > and drop all stable keywords. This is one way to resolve it. We need to establish how an arch gets pushed to "experimental" and how maintainers need to deal with that though. An example is removing the only version of a package that works on that specific arch, is this a problem if the arch is declared to be experimental? If this is the path we want to go down, lets set up some rules for how to handle experimental archs and what it means to go from stable->experimental and experimental->stable. -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com
pgpS6lqfqSAGz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
