From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KzdRW-0001VN-UR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:33:04 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B1E7E034F; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:33:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (fk-out-0910.google.com [209.85.128.184]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E15E034F for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:33:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 18so3967395fks.2 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:32:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=xih8X0whQ0ZVvU69Q1EIxHqZBZb8gZuWciH0hI/4pVc=; b=UYNSNiResD8owzhOkQ4/s4P1eOglR4UDyJ1wObyxGzZ0W/pdKwO26lg98oPe3B17I1 IUzx73QvSJpDPFU6mEcUIMxJOi3+WaIXHXQbu3fMH3ouKJWqVqP/2OSFEuTFheMuPxSm B4eBc1O8kTJ5jsgr5Pc4IJgWGmvZXB/RTR8L8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=gStF5cAT32sjO51wPphSs3IeERg+/JXlFfq4DEYrRofclO0gTeQbY2bOoko0VFW9L0 ffs5f4bJZ3AiXBJcNvEJukcXqmmWqm+GT9X7zuRN1EqXBDRGArHltpiDk3A865UYD9bT xfocC3vfphVJJONezBiH/7h53ny5QhgW9Mc3k= Received: by 10.181.197.2 with SMTP id z2mr2229639bkp.65.1226349179648; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:32:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.249.19 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:32:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6d2ed5bd0811101232s67829037rd5f83c2097ef55a8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:32:59 -0600 From: "Steev Klimaszewski" Sender: steevatgentoo@gmail.com To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds In-Reply-To: <1226341422.16453.3.camel@localhost> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20081110181334.GD7038@aerie.halcy0n.com> <1226341422.16453.3.camel@localhost> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 72e24a280dee04ce X-Archives-Salt: 9f39611a-5957-431c-8e4b-0f801f6a8749 X-Archives-Hash: 1f52d6a2fc87b796b2e75caccb578aac On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > On E, 2008-11-10 at 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote: >> Removing Stable Ebuilds >> >> If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues >> preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older >> version even if it is the most recent stable version for a particular arch. > > Even if that is a package that other packages depend on? Lets say I want > to delete an ancient version of gtk+, but arch ABC has that as the only > stable ebuild, while the rest are ~ABC. Do I remove it, as I may, and > break the whole stable tree of arch ABC, unkeyword hundreds of other > packages, or I'm just allowed to remove it but should really apply a > common sense as usual and you don't want to go into details in this > document? *MAY* choose - you don't *have* to do it - I'd prefer something along the lines of, may stablize it - if after a minimum of 30 days - maybe 90 days max - if the arch team hasn't had enough time to stablize it... when will they ever?