From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A5C913832E for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 19:52:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F32EB21C03C; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 19:52:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 782AE21C039 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 19:52:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (176.red-2-136-144.dynamicip.rima-tde.net [2.136.144.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC12B340C76 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 19:51:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1470685915.21222.4.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2016-08-14 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 21:51:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: <52993bd4-afc9-197e-acda-96db413e6608@gentoo.org> References: <2e11e445-c25b-b7f2-def1-99aed92308b6@gentoo.org> <20160804162443.GA7048@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160804231224.7b7462168f1d23e88fe4135c@gentoo.org> <20160804222234.GA8357@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160805022658.GA15727@linux1> <20160805142859.GA19008@linux1> <20160805153658.GA11058@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <52993bd4-afc9-197e-acda-96db413e6608@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: ead5dc14-992b-4e28-bb76-3ea6d4e4c989 X-Archives-Hash: 1367f919a0160170a2fecc59deca119e El lun, 08-08-2016 a las 14:35 +0200, Marek Szuba escribió: > [...] I am not sure if this has been already suggested or not (as I have not being able to follow all the thread :S) My suggestion, for now would be to modify a bit the current policy: if I don't misremember, we can drop stable keywords for arches that are not stabilizing the package in 90 days. The problem is that it currently cannot be done in most of the times because it's not feasible for the maintainer to drop the keyword and *also* all the stable keywords of reverse deps. Hence, I would suggest to, apart of allowing the maintainers to drop the keywords, to also allow them to stabilize that packages on that arches when this timeout has expired  Thanks a lot