From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88199138247 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:54:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A29BE0AEE; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:54:35 +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 6D7A2E0ADC for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot.lan (77-254-90-234.adsl.inetia.pl [77.254.90.234]) (using SSLv3 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F7DE33F439; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:54:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:54:15 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: williamh@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy Message-ID: <20140115105415.5df3cdac@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> References: <20140114213719.GA2684@laptop.home> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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-sha512; boundary="Sig_/AkpZU_i16NxRlEnQPZDgb.q"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: f671203f-7ade-48f2-a31d-d7149bfc40d8 X-Archives-Hash: c76643b656f19f846c953c3131b7564a --Sig_/AkpZU_i16NxRlEnQPZDgb.q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2014-01-14, o godz. 15:37:19 William Hubbs napisa=C5=82(a): > I want comments wrt two ideas: >=20 > 1. I think maintainers should be able to stabilize their packages on arch= 's > they have access to. I think this is allowed by some arch teams, but I > think it would be good to formalize it. I think we'd use more feedback from the 'other' arch teams before agreeing on this. Some arches may have a pretty tricky issues that could affect stabilization but which average developer may be not aware of. Maybe it'd be good if each arch team had a wiki page explaining the testing process for their arch. We should also make it clear that the developer is supposed to test the package on a pure stable system to avoid misunderstandings. > 2. I would like to see the policy below applied to all arch's [2]. > > [2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.t= xt Honestly, this sounds like a very bad idea to me. Even on the minor architectures. TLDR: users will end up running unsupported mixed-arch systems and stabilizing the package again sometime wouldn't make much sense. Dropping the stable keyword on a package means that user either: 1) has to remove the package and either find an alternative or lose particular features completely. And unlike with regular package.mask, he won't get any tips from us. In fact, this policy makes it possible to kill, say, the last graphical word processor on the arch. 2) has to add package.accept_keywords entry for the package. Which means turning a pure stable system into an unsupported mixed-keyword system. Considering portage behavior, I think that 2) is much more likely. Now, the keyword may be added per-version or per-package. If it's added per-version, user simply ends up sticking to another single version until he thinks of upgrading the package manually. If it's added per-package, the keyword usually persists on the user's system. When we bring the stable keywords to the package again, user would have to notice that and remove his override. How likely is that going to happen? So, in the end once we remove stable keyword from a package, most users add ~arch keyword and future stable keyword on the package becomes meaningless. I'd rather go for removing stable keywords from all packages. This would at least make turning the architecture back stable easy for users. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/AkpZU_i16NxRlEnQPZDgb.q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJS1lrLXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2REJCMDdDQzRGMERBRDA2RUEwQUZFNDFC MDdBMUFFQUVGQjQ0NjRFAAoJELB6GurvtEZOe9sQANxjeK2hu2/EU/aRYwfxQZBv C+hU4nkXJk7AMxOjgZ7mxl71SElLPllnRgUQlDQJBWtGkKKqRYeh3vndrpL4/786 kjpeC+rSBqOcor4XagjtMuU0KrFWz5bTMsJcB1F45M8QAzqZD7M+2EvGXmN6C7an /TisS+o+58AtJGyFjMJG3POF7WlTA+Tos81oQIzF69Qe+h3AqVZSQt0q6SpuuH1M jyyctshDQc0XP+f9xtMAIKhQB3cdGqPzF44XCXOf3XRY4J+TVYJjWuN+xnBeAkqO QXB9GZW8q26cpFQF9iffUrADkAWJZy7/rQNHHkJx3twtmBl0uZ8vCw0Jvf5sOvFK qJS/aMfzmEh8Jc8nacH5bBwCl9zIc/2p2Xz/TvgFdhDOtooYxOo2x0fQPzMXrkHx t8h9gOHi9PXy0T6YZPUYHIKB3AfImuHDxUaytXtWqHPaukumz4WdC65qMDFInj6L EG6/6GLev/qsK8ZoLYtLB15Hn011SVB36eyKp7Z2yb/LNwCpzCymblYldlSNe9fM cvG280zA3RrdOfDOtQGFySS/Zq073igwap9ooiKhO13lOtQA9w1u5Nyv9ONHx6wx jrSsQfgfnuS0sw8jgpq3GiA9CfIz6e4vrEAJV3uRIPOKc1CEye+vIT3L8kS16TNP oRsSHeTzMafAHW+uma/v =1C1t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/AkpZU_i16NxRlEnQPZDgb.q--