From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C198138A1A for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:45:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EEC9CE0969; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:45:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09B19E0960 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:45:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF02F3403C1 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 22:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iecvy18 with SMTP id vy18so37010592iec.6 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:45:06 -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 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.97.41 with SMTP id dx9mr24145775igb.1.1424126706104; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.116.39 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:45:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54E25F85.3040400@gentoo.org> References: <1424093690.27408.35.camel@gentoo.org> <54E20E8E.1020102@gentoo.org> <1424102712.27408.46.camel@gentoo.org> <54E25F85.3040400@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:45:06 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About reducing or even removing stable tree for some arches From: Mike Gilbert To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 9372e339-bfa2-4820-979e-bc50c969938a X-Archives-Hash: 727ed915b6c6be4ac26f545d4f9bb3c9 On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> They come from multiple places, for example I am now fighting with >> getting ipython finally stabilized after months of waiting because the >> deps hell in python packages (as package A needs package B, B needs C >> and D maintained by others... and the chain keeps growing and growing). > > > Ah yes. The python and ruby dep hell. I suspect the python depgraph gets a lot bigger when you include testing-related deps. It might be worth use-masking test on some of the smaller archs. If anyone thinks that's a good/bad idea, it would be nice to hear about it.