From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-33386-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1KzbQh-0006Dv-WA
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:24:04 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D8BC0E01EB;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:23:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee (smtp-out.neti.ee [194.126.126.37])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB302E01EB
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:23:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by MXR-4.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED1F1544C8
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:23:42 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at Relay4.estpak.ee
Received: from smtp-out.neti.ee ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (MXR-4.estpak.ee [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 9WoP-XQuC4Z6 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:23:41 +0200 (EET)
Received: from Relayhost2.neti.ee (Relayhost2 [88.196.174.142])
	by MXR-4.estpak.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF28C6
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:23:41 +0200 (EET)
X-SMTP-Auth-NETI-Businesmail: no
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds
From: Mart Raudsepp <leio@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <20081110181334.GD7038@aerie.halcy0n.com>
References: <20081110181334.GD7038@aerie.halcy0n.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-twz+ykEw3BYJ5WSEmsuR"
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:23:42 +0200
Message-Id: <1226341422.16453.3.camel@localhost>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.0 
X-Archives-Salt: 9830f4df-12a6-4334-858b-316b08460bb7
X-Archives-Hash: da71110d23b16e7f015a52fa9fae1f53


--=-twz+ykEw3BYJ5WSEmsuR
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On E, 2008-11-10 at 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Removing Stable Ebuilds
>=20
> If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical is=
sues
> preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an old=
er
> version even if it is the most recent stable version for a particular arc=
h.

Even if that is a package that other packages depend on? Lets say I want
to delete an ancient version of gtk+, but arch ABC has that as the only
stable ebuild, while the rest are ~ABC. Do I remove it, as I may, and
break the whole stable tree of arch ABC, unkeyword hundreds of other
packages, or I'm just allowed to remove it but should really apply a
common sense as usual and you don't want to go into details in this
document?


--=20
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

--=-twz+ykEw3BYJ5WSEmsuR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkkYfC4ACgkQkeYb6olFHJd0dQCcDmlnVimNUDobvJ1cZwvEs0Rl
vrUAoJ9W/pigD/shZ6FXengH67gI9U6m
=iuJ8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-twz+ykEw3BYJ5WSEmsuR--