[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Council Reminder for June 11

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@gentoo.org> posted
1244672807.6190.35.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de, excerpted below, on  Thu, 11
Jun 2009 00:26:47 +0200:

>> * The Council votes for final approval, pending Portage implementation.
> 
> Looks good so far.
> 
>> * Portage implements it in ~arch. People start using it in ~arch.
> 
> I'd propose: Portage implements it in ~arch. People can start using it
> in overlays.

The problem with that is that it's a NOOP.  People can use whatever they 
want in overlays, already, a feature that's a good part of their 
dynamic.  Thus, "can start using it in overlays" is entirely meaningless.

Now one could add the single word "official" in there, as in "official 
overlays", defining that term much as layman does.  (Actually, it appears 
the layman manpage uses the terms "fully supported" and "non-official", 
not specifically the term "official", altho the contrasting "non-
official" does have the implication of making "fully supported" overlays 
synonymous with "official overlays".)

>> * Portage goes stable. People are allowed to start using it in stable
>>   for things that aren't deps of anything super-critical.
> 
> I'd propose: Portage goes stable. 4 Weeks thereafter people are allowed
> to start using it for things that aren't deps of anything
> super-critical.

Question.  Was the omission of a specific ~arch allowed step deliberate?  
You went from "allowed in overlays" to "allowed in stable", without a 
stop in ~arch.  Either it was deliberate and an reason would have been 
useful, or it was simply overlooked.

(FWIW, a policy that ~arch portage of an approved EAPI allows ~arch 
packages, stable portage allows stable packages, but with the cost of 
putting it in ~arch before stable portage has it stated explicitly -- 
that anyone choosing to do so should be prepared to revert to a previous 
EAPI should a security bump require it before portage stabilizes -- that 
sort of policy works for me.  Problems we've had can thus be explained as 
not making that cost of following ~arch portage with ~arch packages 
explicit, I believe, so make it explicit and let the maintainers then 
choose based on that.  Perhaps add the additional caveat that it may ONLY 
be done with the signoff of a backup maintainer and/or the supporting 
project as well, in the hopefully unusual case that the maintainer that 
did the conversion goes MIA when a security bug comes up to press the 
matter, so there's always someone else that understands the situation 
well enough to handle the revert to a stable EAPI as necessary.  However 
that's not a strongly held position and doesn't mean I oppose the above, 
only that I'd like clarification thereof.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman