public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] guidline to set a timeline of removal of ebuild from stable tree
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 06:36:31 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <466E772F.6010807@thefreemanclan.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070612100139.GA4738@ferdyx.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1781 bytes --]

Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> Some of the packages I maintain are better removed when a new
> maintenance version is released. And I plan to keep it that way :)
> 

Can you clarify this?  What scenarios do you run into where it isn't 
good for stable users to have access to more than one version of the 
software?

One thing that I noticed is that in many cases there are multiple 
testing versions of a package available, and one stable version.  So, if 
you run unstable you can pick and choose, but if you're running stable 
(which in theory should be the target audience gentoo aims for) then you 
get your choice of only one.

I tend to think that unless something unusual is going on that old 
packages should be kept around for a while (a few weeks at least).  The 
same should apply to packages in testing as well.  Actually, that could 
be a whole separate topic.  There have been many times that I've had to 
upgrade to a package in testing to get some needed feature, but then it 
gets deleted in favor of some other package in testing - and the stable 
package sits at its current version for ages.  Unless a package in 
testing has a reasonably serious problem of some kind it would seem to 
make more sense to me to have ebuilds not removed until they've been 
stabilized and then obsoleted.  An exception would be revision bumps - 
no sense stabilizing an ebuild revision that has a simple bugfix 
available without an upstream version change.

Others have pointed out that inflexible rules aren't always the answer. 
  I'd agree in general, but there should be guidelines.  Maybe certain 
packages shouldn't have multiple stable versions to choose from.  But 
when "certain packages" becomes 80% of them then I'd wonder if there 
really is a good reason for this...

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3875 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-06-12 10:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-06-12  9:40 [gentoo-dev] guidline to set a timeline of removal of ebuild from stable tree cilly
2007-06-12  9:49 ` [gentoo-dev] " Christian Faulhammer
2007-06-12  9:53   ` cilly
2007-06-12  9:59 ` [gentoo-dev] " Luca Barbato
2007-06-12 10:04   ` Fernando J. Pereda
2007-06-12 10:01 ` Fernando J. Pereda
2007-06-12 10:14   ` cilly
2007-06-12 10:21     ` Fernando J. Pereda
2007-06-12 10:30       ` cilly
2007-06-12 10:40         ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2007-06-12 10:48           ` cilly
2007-06-12 11:09             ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2007-06-12 10:36   ` Richard Freeman [this message]
2007-06-12 10:46     ` Fernando J. Pereda
2007-06-12 10:53       ` cilly
2007-06-12 10:59         ` cilly
2007-06-12 11:27           ` Luca Barbato
2007-06-12 11:37             ` cilly
2007-06-12 11:29           ` Christoph Mende
2007-06-12 11:38             ` cilly
2007-06-13 14:35             ` Robert Buchholz
2007-06-13 14:58               ` Brian Harring
2007-06-12 16:55           ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2007-06-13 14:44             ` banym tuxaner
2007-06-12 11:03         ` [gentoo-dev] " Fernando J. Pereda
2007-06-12 11:08           ` cilly
2007-06-12 16:05         ` Luis Francisco Araujo
2007-06-12 10:48     ` Luca Barbato
2007-06-12 10:50       ` cilly
2007-06-12 11:21         ` Petteri Räty
2007-06-12 11:50           ` cilly
2007-06-12 11:00     ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
2007-06-12 11:25     ` [gentoo-dev] " Christian Faulhammer
2007-06-12 11:52       ` cilly
2007-06-12 12:55 ` [gentoo-dev] " Marius Mauch
2007-06-12 12:59   ` cilly

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=466E772F.6010807@thefreemanclan.net \
    --to=rich@thefreemanclan.net \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox