From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D767D138A1C for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:14:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BB56E0921; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo4-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de (mo4-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de [81.169.146.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9F0DE07FD for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:14:17 +0000 (UTC) X-RZG-AUTH: :IW0NeWCpcPchHrcnS4ebzBgQnKHTmUiSF2JlOcy++J4CiniTKHWnzkcZlA== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from pinacolada.localnet (46-227-103-47.hsi.glasfaser-ostbayern.de [46.227.103.47]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 37.5 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id x0472ar33KE24ES (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (curve sect571r1 with 571 ECDH bits, eq. 15360 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate) for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:14:02 +0200 (CEST) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:13:53 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.38-gentoo; KDE/4.14.6; x86_64; ; ) References: <20150402141428.GA31638@oregano.home.lan> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201504032214.01310.dilfridge@gentoo.org> 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 X-Archives-Salt: e5c97a45-0cff-4cf0-8fd6-e1b802e0f43f X-Archives-Hash: 06dfd4a1d52a63be0ae044620db1ecb6 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Am Freitag, 3. April 2015, 22:01:32 schrieb Rich Freeman: > For reference, the policy we came up with last time for ia64 and alpha only was: > > "If a maintainer has an open STABLEREQ, or a KEYWORDREQ blocking a > pending STABLEREQ, for 90 days with archs CCed and otherwise ready > to be stabilized, the maintainer can remove older stable versions of > the package at their discretion. A package is considered ready to be > stabilized if it has been in the tree for 30 days, and has no known > major flaws on arches that upstream considers supported." If we're bringing this up again, we should maybe also clarify it. My understanding at the time was that the removal of older stable versions may leave the deptree of the arch in question in a broken state, however bad that is. There seem to be different interpretations though. - -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfridge@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJVHvSJXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ0RkJDMzI0NjNBOTIwMDY5MTQ2NkMzNDBF MTM4NkZEN0VGNEI1Nzc5AAoJEOE4b9fvS1d5OaEQAKBVYSY9tSFlaeAQdr2o/4UI n14i5tcbUv3Kz/l3CTYsix8vgx9437ohAjWz6Xo1g04WSAS/hACOA9vQpNWZE9z1 9hvjKzi5X6qzOX+s7nu+nFnXGpQ5hRxVIJ/YtQc+rtaZrKpQnsLLctUuCHi59Vnm eVDUnQ/ILVa/PXWsMCNbSQbV/5JbXcBvFckP6HTUURfZ4CrmZtd8lkhFAC7Le1mk 5QYtcKmPaXDajhcG/N1i+l2BE/hoR6q0qA9xEscT//Yxu9FTjCDzOLZAGW39/b75 ydURtUeMy97pQyu50oUodybPM0uWKml8LecWLfsGkvFQ02Jw2B9pdSSDpVhL0y4E JuCMsWFVwxNtVL/fVX3NHgu5e2MARQJvc7ouDsppku8lZfgs3tALxL9vVgllasoe +d1ehEsHOG+Sx8AACgojjxgr27CRMhVm1YYhb88dBscABMyjv8t8anVsevEYq16c OnT1Jo+iuHkUYiaiG13Sf3uVop/WtZ5xITQC/B9I9TidOSw7KanqszSK63cTZPm2 PMp5sg+/eJN48bpowFnX7M1FHU/eT5YteHJpUoreteVa+TNRCqwIhrjpqO4ZLm+M ncYWlvk85voGbYojPvtfk9c/k74QK9Lih0JkX42Y5M583iwrIfPZs7Rlx1OXByfR 1Rdhk4KHFKZbTgStHwqR =GWmw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----