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 ) id 1Kzp3g-0003LB-M9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:57:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 70F44E03C9; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447C6E040A for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (unknown [77.246.104.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B038B64EF3 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds From: Peter Volkov To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <4918DE04.8010207@gentoo.org> References: <20081110181334.GD7038@aerie.halcy0n.com> <4918D0BC.50202@gentoo.org> <4918DE04.8010207@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:56:35 +0300 Message-Id: <1226393795.10664.39.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: aa88af04-7ee0-467d-99fa-7b1749421f44 X-Archives-Hash: 4501a3803f093ed16a17d1f718f9ac61 Why it's so hard not to delete ebuilds from the tree? Also it was already discussed that if maintainer wishes he/she could drop some keywords from old ebuild, e.g. if you have more recent version of package stabilized on arch, just drop arch keyword from the old ebuild. =D0=92 =D0=9F=D0=BD=D0=B4, 10/11/2008 =D0=B2 20:21 -0500, Richard Freeman= =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > I guess the question is whether package maintainers should be forced > to maintain packages that are outdated by a significant period of > time. Suppose something breaks a package that is 3 versions behind > stable on all archs but one (where it is the current stable). Should > the package maintainer be required to fix it, rather than just delete > it? I suspect that the maintainer would be more likely to just leave > it broken, which doesn't exactly leave things better-off for the end > users. The package maintainer just should add depend on stabilization bug and leave resolution of the issue to arch team. Package maintainer already fixed things on his end so he has nothing to do... --=20 Peter.