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 1NvqkJ-0000Eq-Ja for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:33:37 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 49BB2E0875; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net (vms173017pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.17]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05809E0819 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:33:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([unknown] [96.245.231.248]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0KZZ007MKPF0YNE0@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 06:33:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.168.0.5] (rich.homedns.org [192.168.0.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960791759F46 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-id: <4BAF3E6B.4070501@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 07:32:59 -0400 From: Richard Freeman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100306 Thunderbird/3.0.3 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Reworking package stabilization policies References: <20100327205841.GA12996@linux1> <201003280747.28790.reavertm@gmail.com> <20100328083918.48f5835b@snowmobile> <4BAF29AD.7090505@gentoo.org> In-reply-to: <4BAF29AD.7090505@gentoo.org> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 3c59b3a8-4c84-46ae-99f8-e228c4a2f10e X-Archives-Hash: c1c7e4f05870df061d701d17d0bc0654 On 03/28/2010 06:04 AM, Tom=E1=9A Chv=E1tal wrote: > > Basically you are saying that NONE tested that package on the arch unti= l > the stablerequest. That's quite wrong and it should mean that the arch > should be ~ only, since they are stabling packages that they first > tested the day they stable them. > Well, keep in mind that if a package is marked ~arch, it is getting=20 used, but for the most part it isn't getting used with other packages=20 that are stable. So, if your package is ~arch for a period of time that=20 gives you strong evidence that it works with openrc, but no evidence as=20 to whether it works with baselayout-1, which is what stable users have. So, I would argue that for any package to be stabilized on an arch it=20 should be tested on that arch on a stable platform. amd64 has had the policy that any dev can stabilize if they've tested it=20 on a stable amd64 system, and this hasn't really caused problems. Perhaps we should encourage understaffed arch teams to recruit more arch=20 testers if possible? Then any dev could ask an arch tester to test on=20 some platform that they don't have access to, and then stabilize=20 accordingly? For arch-neutral packages a more liberal policy might be possible, but=20 keep in mind that the set of stable packages is not the same across=20 archs. So, unless you check carefully you might not be testing the same=20 library dependency versions from one stable platform to another, and=20 that could cause problems. Rich