From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MEdow-0006Kv-8Y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:31:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D7CE6E0414; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99214E0414 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5D164275 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:31:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.954 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.954 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.645, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eis5711k1l8D for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:31:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE7364194 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:31:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MEdoc-0004Gy-Aa for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:31:10 +0000 Received: from ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.21.207]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:31:10 +0000 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:31:10 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo Council Reminder for June 11 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:31:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1244154362.11496.172.camel@localhost> <1244668909.6190.23.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> <20090610230822.0a9a08fc@snowcone> <1244672807.6190.35.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> 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=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-21-207.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: fb1c3d79-d6ae-4b06-8b4f-d143fccec675 X-Archives-Hash: feac193cfc2cae059da59d2953e80fc2 Tobias Scherbaum posted 1244672807.6190.35.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de, excerpted below, on Thu, 1= 1 Jun 2009 00:26:47 +0200: >> * The Council votes for final approval, pending Portage implementation= . >=20 > Looks good so far. >=20 >> * Portage implements it in ~arch. People start using it in ~arch. >=20 > 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=20 want in overlays, already, a feature that's a good part of their=20 dynamic. Thus, "can start using it in overlays" is entirely meaningless. Now one could add the single word "official" in there, as in "official=20 overlays", defining that term much as layman does. (Actually, it appears= =20 the layman manpage uses the terms "fully supported" and "non-official",=20 not specifically the term "official", altho the contrasting "non- official" does have the implication of making "fully supported" overlays=20 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. >=20 > 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? = =20 You went from "allowed in overlays" to "allowed in stable", without a=20 stop in ~arch. Either it was deliberate and an reason would have been=20 useful, or it was simply overlooked. (FWIW, a policy that ~arch portage of an approved EAPI allows ~arch=20 packages, stable portage allows stable packages, but with the cost of=20 putting it in ~arch before stable portage has it stated explicitly --=20 that anyone choosing to do so should be prepared to revert to a previous=20 EAPI should a security bump require it before portage stabilizes -- that=20 sort of policy works for me. Problems we've had can thus be explained as= =20 not making that cost of following ~arch portage with ~arch packages=20 explicit, I believe, so make it explicit and let the maintainers then=20 choose based on that. Perhaps add the additional caveat that it may ONLY= =20 be done with the signoff of a backup maintainer and/or the supporting=20 project as well, in the hopefully unusual case that the maintainer that=20 did the conversion goes MIA when a security bug comes up to press the=20 matter, so there's always someone else that understands the situation=20 well enough to handle the revert to a stable EAPI as necessary. However=20 that's not a strongly held position and doesn't mean I oppose the above,=20 only that I'd like clarification thereof.) --=20 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