From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2891 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2004 01:16:32 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 5 Jul 2004 01:16:32 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BhI5t-00008v-DK for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:16:29 +0000 Received: (qmail 25995 invoked by uid 89); 5 Jul 2004 01:16:28 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 31486 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2004 01:16:28 +0000 From: Dylan Carlson Reply-To: absinthe@gentoo.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 21:14:30 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <40E4B84B.1040501@scms.waikato.ac.nz> <200407030234.18628.absinthe@gentoo.org> <20040705001000.405fbd0a@sven.genone.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20040705001000.405fbd0a@sven.genone.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407042114.30834.absinthe@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for retirement of old gentoo 'versions' X-Archives-Salt: db449b6f-7e75-4c4f-a8aa-02185244fdbb X-Archives-Hash: 3ae485d4e6ec83bc1e1dc8a18af33c98 On Sunday 04 July 2004 6:10 pm, Marius Mauch wrote: > I don't think that we want to force specific versions on users. > If we do so they will start to modify the profiles locally which would > be an even worse problem. For current releases/profiles, I would agree. For old profiles, I think it's reasonable to restrict packages. It's easier to keep a profile together than it is to support the whole package tree against users who are using a 1.0 profile (or whatever). I'm not sure it's possible for us to adequately QA old profiles -- moving targets. It makes sense (in my way of thinking, anyway) to limit old profiles to things we know that work... things that are thoroughly tested against that profile. While the majority of our manhours happen in the current and future profiles. If people need newer packages, they would consider switching their machines to a newer profile. > anyway this needs a GLEP before it could be considered. Agreed. I'm not part of the "enterprise" stuff, wherever that currently lives (it's not listed in Projects or Sub-projects, so I have no idea). But I would like to be a reviewer in that process at least, if not a contributor. Cheers, Dylan Carlson [absinthe@gentoo.org] Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list