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 ) id 1Nvm7R-0001l9-3p for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 06:37:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E1D3E080E; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 06:37:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gw0-f53.google.com (mail-gw0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA33FE0806 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 06:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwaa12 with SMTP id a12so2915123gwa.40 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:36:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=l/2gbIKhVQgVEvuQE5QE/2LILANkIyoTeH0CAsQScyA=; b=llnkTALyoDHEiKBIBfaB75x25wfUaieDe5GpEeBvDYpCYNmundl/52Rolp/uoYtvld tpfi5Mn99NfsPaDIiUjITSyZ1b8PcKlQkvGtaU51wbaiRWQv9tq5VUBnZmdewBX0oM+g tCuBkgy+i59e2Lp8/ojsZWzJT/xAVXLKecxaE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=SXCFSiii3sI4N+d19XM3ZhiYwXZeDRSF5CK3v0DvH34Y+n1mooDg+zCSS1blIXqQnY NhL+Izq6BanBIsXw8/5aaAHpBRuI61lTxdxHxGyEf6gAWshbUqe+8IzznlaT8MbKu/QP t3VIOg0a/2GFVR83NmJ6wtzNIxOubyHGE/M/I= Received: by 10.150.235.11 with SMTP id i11mr3530480ybh.289.1269758198415; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (c-67-169-36-60.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.36.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm2618004iwn.0.2010.03.27.23.36.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:34:43 -0700 Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:34:43 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reworking package stabilization policies Message-ID: <20100328063443.GA25918@hrair.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> References: <20100327205841.GA12996@linux1> <201003280747.28790.reavertm@gmail.com> <201003281931.10274.ali_bush@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201003281931.10274.ali_bush@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: 9a9673ab-5d1c-49e7-9ae9-8a5e2b5a99f7 X-Archives-Hash: 25e8285e1e545d4a3e70942b002246a3 --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 07:31:10PM +1300, Alistair Bush wrote: > > On Saturday 27 of March 2010 21:58:41 William Hubbs wrote: > >=20 > > It's really freaking silly to wait months for stabilization of some ran= dom > > php/perl library that's known to work. >=20 > Have you ever just considered closing the stabilization bug and ignoring = the=20 > arch. If they take so long to mark your packages as stable why do you ca= re=20 > about them enough to even attempt to stabilize anything on their arch. If the pkg isn't a leaf node, you wind up keeping older and older=20 versions lingering across multiple pkgs to keep it from breaking=20 stable. This is assuming that it's still heavily frowned upon to remove the=20 only stable version available for a non-dead arch... ~harring --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuu+IMACgkQsiLx3HvNzgcxCQCgq9uPjvJcmtK/2T12QMxXqnwt /3sAn3yp+kVTyRMWPn6HwwfsMSPaAREL =nnqr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l--