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 DAA8B138C48 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:28:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6649AE0921; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:28:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6D8FE091D for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 22:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oblw8 with SMTP id w8so12403180obl.0 for ; Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:28:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=s/X6aae1A3Rv9vnkRdtTL8Fqk9xU2b3YFAXR8glBM3A=; b=HsOZWzTSeRpwenKIUxJJZUn3gDzWUoP55HbPjEnDVcOJRdTeyTIQCRLLS/VxVq58lJ GW8nnH01MDQ2yMIu7I0YTBjdU6JxYkRevq18KyW1SkuiPADCEhzNZVc42eHMmFjekBkl cM56RGN2pkreaKkT+FXLJ8sL788J09+NwR8j/oN2c1DWMvDbPQnk7Dm/OuPozXSSU1/2 fQHh3q4dbm9oirPumFbhBCaOOm6auFBMpuudH6PaUm70dAsunQaEUz24qTIyVEWOa8WA yU7En/AuxfXvdC1r2XbuTmRCkLG+0XLkqZD2ZeWL043MWFtSMqaJk329LQ3jvdkRKrVT oxlQ== X-Received: by 10.182.126.162 with SMTP id mz2mr21565745obb.21.1428359335253; Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id my16sm4760126obc.25.2015.04.06.15.28.54 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 16061 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 06 Apr 2015 22:28:48 -0000 Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 17:28:48 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items Message-ID: <20150406222848.GA15241@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <20150404220205.GA415@linux1> <1428237147.22472.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20150405195044.GA2917@linux1> <20150406002706.4aff7e4dda27a25a5c106b50@gentoo.org> <20150406023841.46e7491f7c76925908446de5@gentoo.org> <20150406095922.19036ce2@pomiot.lan> <20150407003704.208098b1575f1c862e0df625@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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150407003704.208098b1575f1c862e0df625@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Archives-Salt: bb128c63-f4e1-40f5-a0b9-13c5f139ce1a X-Archives-Hash: 2a958654a8077f3ef029417b169f3e2c --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 12:37:04AM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Mon, 6 Apr 2015 09:59:22 +0200 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > [...] > > > Hmm, that's a hard question. I tried to consider this issues from a > > > point of view of a user of such arch. If package is not used or > > > user may delete it and its deps without much harm, it doesn't affect > > > user at all. If it is used and needed, then in case of: > > >=20 > > > - one package with removed stable keyword a user have to add to > > > package.keywords only a single package, though it might be > > > difficult to locate such package, because portage deptree failure > > > events may be really obscure sometimes; > > >=20 > > > - all subtree of stable keywords is removed; then user have to > > > add all these packages to package.keywords, portage messages should > > > be clear here (but one never knows), though manual keywording of > > > hundred of packages will be irritating at best (even using "cat/*" > > > masks). So if number of affected installed packages is large, users > > > will likely move to ~arch all their setup. > > >=20 > > > So from user's perspective stable deptree broken in single point is > > > a better solution, but(!) if portage will cleanly suggest this > > > point. I believe it does. If you try to emerge something that is ~ or has ~ on one of its deps portage will tell you what you need to unmask to make the emerge possible. > > >=20 > > > Another issue to consider: what if we have one such package that > > > broke stable deptree, then after awhile another one and so on. In > > > the result stable tree will got corrupted beyond repair. At that point, I would say it is time to consider dropping the affected arch to dev or exp. > > > Maybe some grace period will help here? E.g. remove stable keyword > > > from a single package, wait for 30 days (or so) for reaction from a > > > team, and then dekeyword all reverse dependencies. Dekeywording all reverse dependencies makes me nervous. There could be other packages that share those reverse dependencies, so I don't think you want to do that unless you know that no stable package on the arches in question shares the reverse dependencies. I would rather remove the older version of the package once the stable req has had arch teams assigned for 90 days and there has been no update to it or stabilization of the newer version. William --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlUjCKAACgkQblQW9DDEZTiutACgrAKRN6/6HjAVFLl+EPb5a020 n9EAmwZ7xwHtXic72UhGtCF3Wqp9gsNI =2vpp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn--