From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64362-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714DD138247
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:19:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B6E1E0ADE;
	Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:19:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20F9CE0AAA
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:19:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.178.2] (graaff.xs4all.nl [83.163.136.193])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: graaff)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 975B833F1DA
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:18:58 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1389773935.16656.3.camel@localhost>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
From: Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:18:55 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20140115044948.GA4345@laptop.home>
References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.03.1401151045160.21922@star.inp.nsk.su>
	 <20140115044948.GA4345@laptop.home>
Organization: Gentoo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 4fd276f1-bf84-46ef-bbb2-b83c68d6d1e9
X-Archives-Hash: d7b36f7cc3e45135e8d5a9988b5e0671

On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 22:49 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Also, there is a substantial number of packages which contain only python 
> > code (or perl, ruby), or only LaTeX classes, or only documentation. It 
> > makes no sense to test them on each arch separately. I think maintainers 
> > should be allowed to stabilize such packages (with no compiled code) on 
> > all arches.
> 
> There is a reason we don't do this, back in Gentoo history somewhere, but  I
> don't remember what it was.
> 
> If someone can tell us why this isn't allowed I am all ears. Otherwise,
> I could agree on this point as well.

Speaking for ruby I have seen various arch-related bugs in pure ruby
code. It doesn't happen a lot (maybe 1% of stable requests) but it is
also not predictable.

I also like the second set of eyes verifying what we've done as part of
marking a package stable, so I probably would still file bugs rather
than marking stuff stable myself.

Hans