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--