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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hy3A5-0004HN-Eb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:59:42 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5C9wf2K018966; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:58:41 GMT Received: from smtp-out4.libero.it (smtp-out4.libero.it [212.52.84.46]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5C9uLRd016006 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:56:22 GMT Received: from localhost (172.31.0.50) by smtp-out4.libero.it (7.3.120) id 4611FF5204C479A0 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:56:21 +0200 X-Scanned: with antispam and antivirus automated system at libero.it Received: from smtp-out2.libero.it ([172.31.0.38]) by localhost (asav-out9.libero.it [192.168.32.37]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id udKd2YDAiV0B for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:56:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.6] (151.43.234.61) by smtp-out2.libero.it (7.3.120) id 4611FD38052B078E for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:56:21 +0200 Message-ID: <466E6E80.2050603@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:59:28 +0200 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070607) 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] guidline to set a timeline of removal of ebuild from stable tree References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: aa3164fb-92ad-4d5b-8659-3acc0544611b X-Archives-Hash: 1e8f7b343609680ed5861f8a9fe1359a cilly wrote: > Hi all, > > I think it's worth to discuss the `behaviour of removing ebuilds from > the tree`. Currently it's up to the developer, some people are more conservative, some prefer to get rid of certain stuff asap. You should differentiate between ~ and stable ones btw... > > In my opinion, ebuilds are removed too soon, i.e. if an ebuild gets updated > the older ebuild gets removed in the same turn. This happens only when: - there are security concerns - the old ebuild was there till ages and the new one had been in ~ since ages. > In my opinion, it is better to keep the older ebuild around for a while since > if there are some bugs in the newer ebuild, users are able to downgrade easily. that's is quite up to the specific applications IMHO. > What do you think? I'd leave it up to the developer, nothing is lost in gentoo and fetching from the attic isn't exactly difficult. Still probably having a note to make people aware of that could be useful since the problem you pointed doesn't require any more work to be solved. > PS: other topics to be discussed `Not to modify ebuilds which are > already in the tree... even if masked` what do you think? I probably understood what you mean and well, no, I don't think is a good idea. lu - that prefers less rules and more people aware. -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list