From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97CF9138350 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:32:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A2072E084A; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:32:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi1-x236.google.com (mail-oi1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FE9AE0845 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:32:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi1-x236.google.com with SMTP id l9so12296574oii.5 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:32:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=f038ejaT+yIi6C7xw8xGpEefC/jn7EsdR7wdXFSM1sQ=; b=N4XksPxYB1zVCXh58EZ3FJyTnibGATdGYJ4+EdnkEGDISz0f43NxzJIZ1exqv99oDm SRZeLGKsmcBBc2QkPijSusCrkWWZjel68uVsOiTaMVXl8N/TTZNsU5/vJD0Sa2XhffPN /R5iHD/5NHcT0IQssjuyScKs5tQ1XsR11F68SisHKZv4X3IuaoKDLbYcGVbvD9ne86TW qmCYKc1jYHQWY1xqiGDnceV5zG306TN8XQlf09xEr1FlnPjbL2r7tDHSqX9WG/QaJQ+N b2W/YqzoxMVKomMkfEBBkTKofdWvkThOKaQLrxyvBNqQoSQjPBHKfi1ouBC13cm6AD8w EmSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=f038ejaT+yIi6C7xw8xGpEefC/jn7EsdR7wdXFSM1sQ=; b=NeCJ1yGnHxmeo6pJdATsxeOMqjXNpTgtXWIaFK/LfJcsq2dhELJz44CIlqlRZqoU2b 3gzrH24dhG38JsSyWpuJQeE2xAzogDeHGG4Z5zPG+LInlqW0wE5iwOikQCd3SBoOmDVk 742/EsNxqa+HQAix76jhPN7hEG/9wBNxMCnsFruKDHG9qFmNVFgDPMr0S6QB5yAPhh90 /yzglwvI03pBHgKFBAqAD6EVr8WJPdbbE1XolTmWjb1fEW8rTJfDTHLoytrri8VBMDGS 2IYriGqTu30sQYCjV6qXngiAqZRFFXKC5KIsFyehYP2vZhyaz4Qnbua8vQNYSKm0+H1C uteg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVamImlj6R50fJld0bWNur5OFS25UTxEND7+UpvQTjEr04GH6Tf EtWeHvhoQFrPRa2Izx24vcEx5oXnFj5yYftlBOZZ9mUe X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwEVZ7+YHQVBT7gAGr3s84VTMtKdiSR3RaK+6ndLhL9mNXZfuVaiLBxHZj0E8mMvelbrhI7ev3+FWOetI5JG3M= X-Received: by 2002:aca:32c3:: with SMTP id y186mr2497538oiy.114.1581417153168; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 02:32:33 -0800 (PST) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8bd7f75c-3fc4-d243-b7b5-352a5c8da979@gentoo.org> <2aada49cfb3fb19cb4cb4acdd01f3b2db7c92e1b.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <2aada49cfb3fb19cb4cb4acdd01f3b2db7c92e1b.camel@gentoo.org> From: Francesco Riosa Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:32:21 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Inconsistent use of || preferences for www-client/elinks, links, lynx, w3m, and w3mmee To: gentoo development Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a809e8059e4a5f0b" X-Archives-Salt: dfd781a8-09e9-4478-a375-382acf519298 X-Archives-Hash: b9a87e233d9bcfaf4cf7aef2f35b7340 --000000000000a809e8059e4a5f0b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Il giorno lun 10 feb 2020 alle ore 08:20 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny ha scritto: > On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 22:51 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > > In that case, I suppose we'll have to apply consistency manually? Can w= e > > all agree on a global order of preference for the relevant packages? > > That would be my idea, yes. I'd suggest going for the 'lightest' > package first. Would you be able to figure out some kind of measure > on how heavy each of those packages is? I suppose we need to account > for build time and dependencies. > > All of these packages are pretty old and not receiving commits in years, may I suggest that the order should be from the less prone to break to the most prone to break? I'll leave to maintainers decide on how to assign a vote on resilience, but monitoring upstream, active forks and other distro should be taken in account. Best, Francesco --000000000000a809e8059e4a5f0b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
Il giorno lun 10 feb 2020 alle ore 08= :20 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@= gentoo.org> ha scritto:
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 22:51 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> In that case, I suppose we'll have to apply consistency manually? = Can we
> all agree on a global order of preference for the relevant packages?
That would be my idea, yes.=C2=A0 I'd suggest going for the 'lighte= st'
package first.=C2=A0 Would you be able to figure out some kind of measure on how heavy each of those packages is?=C2=A0 I suppose we need to account<= br> for build time and dependencies.

All of these pack= ages are pretty old and not receiving commits in years, may I suggest that = the order should be from the less prone to break to the most prone to break= ?
I'll leave to maintainers decide on how to assign a vote on resili= ence, but monitoring upstream, active forks and other distro should be take= n in account.

Best,
Francesco=C2=A0

--000000000000a809e8059e4a5f0b--