From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-41569-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1OSu5a-00076N-QP
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:48:10 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E7B59E0C27;
	Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:48:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.181])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27506E0B51
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:47:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As8FANUPJ0zO+LkW/2dsb2JhbACSf4wvcr1xhSQEjWo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,492,1272859200"; 
   d="asc'?scan'208";a="68985912"
Received: from 206-248-185-22.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO box.tester.ca) ([206.248.185.22])
  by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2010 11:47:49 -0400
Received: by box.tester.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 9D490980267; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations
From: Olivier =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cr=EAte?= <tester@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <20100627150445.GA19456@Eternity>
References: <20100627150445.GA19456@Eternity>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-VYC4DPinuukOI5YM5K+3"
Organization: Gentoo
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:47:49 -0400
Message-ID: <1277653669.22988.3.camel@TesterBox.tester.ca>
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 2.28.3.1 
X-Archives-Salt: 7ae1b13a-9291-413e-b0cf-fd30b5189d5a
X-Archives-Hash: 66a26fd81bb66cb9fb6c3dbf5bb84bfc


--=-VYC4DPinuukOI5YM5K+3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Moreover, slow arches introduce another problem as well. If a package is
> marked stabled for their arch, but this package is quite old, and they fa=
il to
> stabilize a new version, we ( as maintainers ) can't drop the very old
> ( and obsolete ) version of this package because we somehow will break
> the stable tree for these arches. How should we act in this case?
> Keep the old version around forever just to say that "hey, they do have
> a stable version for our exotic arch".

I'd propose waiting a bit longer than 30 days.. Maybe 90 days, and then
just drop the old ebuild. These arches will slowly lose stable keywords
until their stable tree gets to a size that they can manage. And
everyone will be winners. That said, when dropping the old keywords, you
have to be careful to drop the stable keyword on all dependencies too so
as to not drop break the tree for them.

--=20
Olivier Cr=EAte
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

--=-VYC4DPinuukOI5YM5K+3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkwncqUACgkQHTiOWk7ZortOEQCdGZG8/3kXdjBBb0I3wz3QR83M
52MAn0OLeZPUQLKYxPk6Is8rH+Uwdjq2
=T9Og
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-VYC4DPinuukOI5YM5K+3--