Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2251 bytes --]

Dnia 2015-04-04, o godz. 11:13:54
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 04/04/15 07:13, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > I am against breaking the deptree for any arch that has a stable
> > profile. It's reasonable to expect devs to dekeyword revdeps to ensure
> > the deptree is consistent.
> > If the state of the arch really is that bad, its profiles should be
> > switched to dev or exp to reflect reality.
> >
> 
> Tend to agree, but be careful what you ask for.  Which would the arch
> team REALLY prefer after ignoring a bug for 90 days?  The stable
> depgraph is broken and they have to hurry and stabilize one package to
> fix it, OR the stable depgraph is fine, but suddenly 300 packages no
> longer have stable keywords at all.  Fixing the latter would be a
> royal PITA without git.  Getting rid of stable on those 300 packages
> is also a lot of work for the package maintainer without some kind of
> tool to automate this.

What Gentoo developers would really prefer is being able to commit to
packages without using --force just because someone screwed up
the dependency tree. If you don't care about stable working on some
arch, don't mark the arch profiles stable.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]