Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1514 bytes --]

All, I'm responding to this particular message because I think there is
another  sub-thread we should think about.

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 09:16:03PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 29 August 2013 14:09, Michael Weber <xmw@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 08/28/2013 01:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >> The feedback on the original question was mostly positive.
> >> Most people agree that the long stabilization queues for these
> >> architectures create problems
> >> for maintainers wishing to drop old versions.
> > Is this the only motivation? Drop all the effort that has been put into
> > stabilization work on minor arches just for some impatient maintainers?
> >
> > Keywording/Stabilization is a process we all agreed on joining, so live
> > with it.
> 
> Minor arches holding up GLSAs and removal of vulnerable stable ebuilds
> for 3 months or more is *not* acceptable, and not something I agreed
> to when joining...
> 
> If they can't even do security stabilizations in a reasonable
> timeframe, they have no business being considered stable arches.

In the past, I have had arch teams refuse to stabilize a newer version
of a package after an older version is stable unless a user of the arch
wants the new version to be stabilized, thus forcing  older versions to be
kept around for their stable users.

IMO if an arch team does this, maintainers should be able to move
the affected package to ~ on that arch, or maybe even drop that arch's
keyword entirely.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]