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 1L73YD-0003Hr-6c for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:50:37 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ABD85E02A0; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:50:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEF2E02A0 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:50:35 +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 155D56442C for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:50:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds From: Peter Volkov To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20081130165935.276a512c@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> References: <20081110181334.GD7038@aerie.halcy0n.com> <20081130165935.276a512c@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:49:57 +0300 Message-Id: <1228117797.25651.281.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 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 2cde4195-ba5b-4cca-8903-609d6b0ce43e X-Archives-Hash: ed94ba93a35c0dc9b750fd80d1956692 =D0=92 =D0=92=D1=81=D0=BA, 30/11/2008 =D0=B2 16:59 -0600, Ryan Hill =D0=BF= =D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:34 -0500 > Mark Loeser wrote: > > [proposal] > I know it's not directly related to stabilization, but lately people > have been removing the only keyworded package for the mips arch, under > the excuse that's it's been over 30 days since they opened a keywording > bug. This has been happening on bugs where there are technical issues > and on bugs where we just haven't replied (in which case i can see the > justification). I don't think this is acceptable, just as I don't > think removing the only stable version of a package on an arch is > be acceptable, barring the circumstances Mark outlined above. That people should revert back that ebuilds then. Of course it's not acceptable to remove keywords just because of one's wishes. As it was told in this thread old ebuilds are not maintainer's concern and he/she could touch them only after all arch teams finish their work. Until they done all bugs in old ebuilds should be assigned on arch teams. --=20 Peter.