From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JAPmY-0004L6-5L for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:06:46 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id m03D5pq8009345; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 13:05:51 GMT Received: from aei-tech.com (static-69-95-200-80.ind.choiceone.net [69.95.200.80]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m03D2f94004272 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 13:02:43 GMT Received: (qmail 24477 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2008 13:02:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO www.aei-tech.com) (192.168.1.1) by 192.168.1.1 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2008 13:02:39 -0000 Received: from 192.168.2.159 (SquirrelMail authenticated user ctennis) by www.aei-tech.com with HTTP; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:02:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <54551.192.168.2.159.1199365359.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> In-Reply-To: <20080101103002.083C4652C4@smtp.gentoo.org> References: <20080101103002.083C4652C4@smtp.gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:02:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January From: "Caleb Tennis" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.10a 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 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Archives-Salt: 9c8a7d65-06f2-426b-978e-30cec6b0cf6e X-Archives-Hash: c32c17977368bc02019bc8318df40dfc > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole > Gentoo dev list to see. I would like to request the council discuss, though not necessarily take action or vote on, the idea of "slacker arches" and what ebuild maintainers are allowed/can do to a package versions that are languishing due to not getting stable keywords on those arches. I'm not trying to pick on any specific case, but I am hoping to find out if there's an allowable/acceptable period of time to which if an arch team is unable to stabilize a package to a newer version, for non-technical reasons, that it's okay to drop older unstable ebuilds. I realize this is open to lots of debate and dicussion, and I'm just trying to have a dialogue as to what is acceptable and hopefully get concensus as to some kind of guidance that could be added to the devmanual. Thanks, Caleb -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list