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 1GeyES-0002FT-Ri for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:21:05 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9VIJPA9016315; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:19:25 GMT Received: from mail74.megamailservers.com (mail74.megamailservers.com [216.251.36.74]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9VIEeDS031978 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:14:40 GMT X-Authenticated-User: sdibb.knightsbrg.com Received: from [192.168.1.241] (64.50.56.200.ptr.us.xo.net [64.50.56.200] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail74.megamailservers.com (8.13.6.20060614/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9VIEbtv015200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:14:39 -0500 Message-ID: <4547928F.9050000@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:14:39 -0700 From: Steve Dibb User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20061009) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees References: <20061030082829.GA20216@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <20061030135853.6a1041d5@snowdrop.home> <45464E04.2000004@gentoo.org> <20061030193155.39fa65be@snowdrop.home> <4546576E.7000305@gentoo.org> <20061030202109.785c5aa3@snowdrop.home> <454664A9.3040902@gentoo.org> <20061030205357.68e332b0@snowdrop.home> <45466FA6.7070102@gentoo.org> <20061030224021.33ae9ca0@snowdrop.home> <454761E0.7080105@gentoo.org> <45478081.4020203@gentoo.org> <20061031171112.6a3be901@snowdrop.home> <45478830.7070404@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <45478830.7070404@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c6230850-2de6-45a4-b26b-867ed20c98f8 X-Archives-Hash: 8d154331187fa945cb9f42582b84918a Alec Warner wrote: > On the topic of old ebuilds; situations may arise where a particular > maintainer is trying to clean out a version of a package but finds > that $arch doesn't have anything newer stable and thus can't do any > sort of cleanup for fear of breaking $arch. > > You will probably again state that maintainer should just leave the > older versions around. I will state that at least as a maintainer I'm > willing to do so for only a limited period of time. Otherwise it > becomes an annoyance when trying to clean up after packages to have > ebuilds from three or four minor versions ago lying around. Now this is the exact situation that I'm wondering about. What's the best thing to do? The only thing I can come up with is, if there's an old ebuild that I won't help support / maintain, but it's the latest stable for some arch, then remove all the other arch keywords except that one. At least that way, I won't have to worry about people from arches who *are* up to date bugging me about it. I'm not sure that's the best solution though. I can see the reasoning behind "there's a newer stable version anyway, so they shouldn't use the old one", but really ... it can get annoying having some "stable request" bugs open for a very long time. If someone wants to donate me more hardware, I'll get to working on those. :) Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list