From: Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Cc: Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 00:32:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGDaZ_o1BPntRva3P39k+Y0mfd1Xfe7owHkk6p5L5JARudZm_w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1471423826.31785.52.camel@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3165 bytes --]
Strict compliance with the handbook would seem to forbid having a stable
package depend on an unstable package, and if you have to downgrade a
dependency and it causes a cascade, I would opine, that, perhaps, the
package in question should not have been stabilized to begin with.
That said, I as a user have noticed that packages tend to stall in
stabilization for awhile.
What about a script that can rank ~arch keyworded packages by some sort of
priority?
Maybe point out which one has the most reverse dependencies? Or which one
has been stuck in ~arch the longest? Or some sort of scoring mechanism
that can flag the most urgently needed stabilizations?
Come to think of it, I think debian has a system that flags the most
popular packages. Does gentoo have a way to note what packages are most
important?
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> El lun, 15-08-2016 a las 15:27 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> > [...]
> > Well, I wasn't suggesting that breaking the depgraph is great. Just
> > that I think it is better than calling things stable which aren't.
> >
> > A better approach is a script that does the keyword cleanup.
> >
> > So, if you want to reap an ebuild you run "destabilize
> > foo-1.2.ebuild". It searches the tree for all reverse deps and
> > removes stable keywords from those. Then you commit all of that in
> > one commit.
> >
> > If you want to be extra nice you stick it in a pull request in github
> > and point it out to the arch team and ask them if they're sure they
> > don't want to stabilize your package... :)
> >
>
> Well, the reason I was suggesting to allow maintainers to stabilize
> after the 90 days timeout over *current* policy of allowing the
> dekeywording is that the dekeywording is completely unrealistic to do
> as some packages have a huge amount of reverse deps. Even with the
> script (and, well, I would like to see that script existing... because
> we are having this issue for ages, and that is the reason that nobody
> is moving things to testing actively), you will find many many cases of
> packages having so many reverse dependencies that if you try to move it
> to testing it becomes soon a hell.
>
> The main issue is that, once you start dekeywording one package, you
> jump to, for example, dekeywording another 3 reverse deps, then you
> need to continue with the reverse deps of that reverse deps... and at
> the end, it's completely impossible to manage it (I still remember how
> hard was to move to testing most of Gnome... and we even were lucky as
> we were able to do that with the jump to Gnome3).
>
> Then, my point it to allow the maintainer to keep stabilizing it
> *after* the 90 days timeout. If after that time, the arch team is
> unable to even reply, nobody has reported any build/runtime issues
> related with that arch, I would go ahead. Otherwise, it looks pretty
> evident to me that that arch is near to be used by nobody and maybe it
> should be moved completely to testing (or most of their packages moved
> to testing and only the core apps in stable).
>
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3733 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-18 7:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-14 21:35 [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-14 21:45 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2016-08-14 21:49 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-14 21:49 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-14 21:52 ` M. J. Everitt
2016-08-14 22:06 ` Chris Reffett
2016-08-14 21:50 ` Anthony G. Basile
2016-08-14 21:57 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2016-08-14 22:01 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 19:18 ` Andreas K. Hüttel
2016-08-15 19:19 ` Michael Orlitzky
2016-08-15 3:45 ` Jason Zaman
2016-08-15 3:53 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 4:05 ` Jason Zaman
2016-08-15 7:55 ` Brian Dolbec
2016-08-15 8:50 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 10:21 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-18 6:33 ` Daniel Campbell
2016-08-15 13:40 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-15 15:48 ` Brian Dolbec
2016-08-15 4:29 ` #wg-stable: Reservations about a "STABLE" & "NeedsStable" bugzilla keywords (re: [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree) Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 4:37 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 12:22 ` james
2016-08-15 12:49 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2016-08-15 13:03 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-15 13:15 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2016-08-15 13:25 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-15 14:28 ` james
2016-08-15 18:24 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2016-08-15 19:30 ` Andreas K. Hüttel
2016-08-15 19:42 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-21 0:30 ` Daniel Campbell
2016-10-04 17:25 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2016-10-07 2:40 ` Daniel Campbell
2016-08-15 23:00 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 22:50 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 8:00 ` [gentoo-dev] New Working Group established to evaluate the stable tree Pacho Ramos
2016-08-15 8:15 ` Pacho Ramos
2016-08-15 14:19 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-15 14:49 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-15 14:50 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-15 16:12 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-15 17:31 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-15 18:33 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-15 19:12 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-15 19:27 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-15 20:01 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-15 20:05 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-16 8:02 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2016-08-16 13:52 ` William Hubbs
2016-08-17 8:52 ` [gentoo-dev] " Pacho Ramos
2016-08-17 8:50 ` Pacho Ramos
2016-08-17 13:07 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-17 14:25 ` Pacho Ramos
2016-08-18 7:32 ` Raymond Jennings [this message]
2016-08-15 11:36 ` Kristian Fiskerstrand
2016-08-15 12:24 ` Michael Orlitzky
2016-08-15 13:37 ` Rich Freeman
2016-08-15 23:19 ` Kent Fredric
2016-08-15 19:33 ` Markus Meier
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=CAGDaZ_o1BPntRva3P39k+Y0mfd1Xfe7owHkk6p5L5JARudZm_w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=shentino@gmail.com \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=rich0@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