From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1ErBPN-0006BC-Ts for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:46:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBR9jQ4g024657; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:45:26 GMT Received: from server1.tassoneent.com ([64.34.163.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBR9jP82016902 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:45:25 GMT Received: from [172.21.3.102] (adsl-63-200-91-249.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net [63.200.91.249]) by server1.tassoneent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD9CC69 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] Moving stable versions of alternative vms back to ~arch From: Greg Tassone To: gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <43AD5C7C.8010605@gentoo.org> References: <43AD5C7C.8010605@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-JttWyOJ9O5nwRGFyua4U" Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:22 -0800 Message-Id: <1135676722.7747.24.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-java@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 X-Archives-Salt: ff662571-e5dc-49bf-9c0e-2fed349ad3a0 X-Archives-Hash: e44a31f967cb54d4cfb1df48a8d705a5 --=-JttWyOJ9O5nwRGFyua4U Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 16:34 +0200, Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > At the moment we have old versions of at least > dev-java/{kaffe,jamvm,sablevm} marked stable. The open source java stack > is starting to be usable but these old versions certainly are not drop > in replacements for the proprietary ones. This in mind I propose that we > move everything to ~arch and re-evaluate them going stable when the time > is right. To give everyone time for objections I plan on moving the > versions to ~arch in January. I think the above statements need some clarification. Are you saying that you want to take the currently-marked-as-stable versions of these packages in Portage and change them to ~arch? If so, that is probably a bad idea for several reasons, chief of which is the many questions/complaints we will all receive when world updates are trying to downgrade packages, or worse, when the new Portage starts complaining about a broken state of the world file due to "No packages being available for [whatever]". Instead I would suggest leaving the existing flags as-is, and bump revs on (new) ebuilds (or newer versions if they exist) and just flag those as appropriate. I think most/all folks using those packages are aware of their limited compatibility with the proprietary VM's. Therefore, the risk of leaving the current versions "stable" is probably minimal. As a worst-case, if you're really concerned about users misconstruing the supposed "stable" status of these packages, you could always add some einfo/ewarn style messages to explain it on those versions. JMHO. Greg --=-JttWyOJ9O5nwRGFyua4U Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDsQ0yaI3pdOrDO40RAulmAKCAgVYtZXzozqrk38Y9ltyfj2QP3ACfYR6F legCt9UWTGJaiKLz9IKpRkg= =Q/UN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-JttWyOJ9O5nwRGFyua4U-- -- gentoo-java@gentoo.org mailing list