From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GewIh-0001uX-Tp for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:17:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9VGFiOV015164; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:15:44 GMT Received: from ppsw-3.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-3.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.133]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9VGBoXQ022615 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:11:50 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from spb42.christs.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.233.172]:49494 helo=blashyrk) by ppsw-3.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.153]:465) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1GewDB-0002Zv-Ay (Exim 4.63) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:11:37 +0000 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:11:45 +0000 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees Message-ID: <20061031161145.7e5c8b36@blashyrk> In-Reply-To: References: <45468ED1.8050107@gentoo.org> <20061031003334.50376630@snowdrop.home> <200610310857.02169.linux@quanteam.info> <20061031150236.7b080211@snowdrop.home> <20061031154508.2dd9afe8@blashyrk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.6 (GTK+ 2.10.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: 2f3b811e-0598-46a8-8ffc-d25f5800f0ed X-Archives-Hash: e8e71cebfc7d00a3642602cce671ec0f On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:02:46 +0100 "Stuart Herbert" wrote: > 1) Leave the older versions in the tree, even though they are > insecure and possibly/probably no longer supported by package > maintainers. This keeps minority arches happy at the expense of the > larger group of package maintainers. How exactly does this affect package maintainers, apart from the cosmetic problems of having an old ebuild lying around? As far as I can see, it doesn't affect the maintenance burden, since if the arch still using the old version needs a fix present in the newer versions they can just keyword one of those, and if the fix isn't present it doesn't much matter which ebuild(s) get it applied. The original request not to remove an arch's latest stable ebuild seems reasonable enough to me -- we're not asking package maintainers to support or update things that they wouldn't otherwise, merely not to be so hasty about removing them from the tree since they might still be of use to someone. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list