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 5FC49138A6C for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:41:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E037E08F1; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:41:16 +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 B0157E08AE for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 22:41:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbeb7 with SMTP id eb7so86265309obb.3 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 15:41:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=f6c2EfBMDWK1cDpMPX8e0VEhHDGVBdKbEgfsvgYEfuU=; b=Lu9TBVhejC6inOvuHn6R5VoAa6pjNzbSnTxYHKf1hVrAfkbOBfAbEsl8KtCgsNTanv rfkwDWwoWzs1rDppA8OygecTqNgXMe0kr27dfA60SJlwzNuR98iYMWrcVuOG9D1025/r PH8hvXSsy+XAtIsTn0GjGDnXunY+079Fh0lH/C0b0J3vFyrRFzOOQUvQGS7WvjbdfmJp Op6vw7e2bJg7OcApYtzsFVfPPG5ifxEnkp8bVn24/K5iptsNC4eYhUzRVsPh9ftTtmEQ t1p5MEcbfBTUDS7DxibNIf/ueWqV1kRmKPGi/92EGrAAfRVGKed4mhQDn4o3ZOZz50GT RpyQ== X-Received: by 10.60.62.197 with SMTP id a5mr1089182oes.79.1428532874855; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 15:41:14 -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 z2sm9891166oex.14.2015.04.08.15.41.13 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Apr 2015 15:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 28514 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:41:12 -0000 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 17:41:12 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: Richard Freeman Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items Message-ID: <20150408224112.GA28020@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, Richard Freeman References: <1428353540.2041.11.camel@gentoo.org> <55246753.5060902@gentoo.org> <20150408115116.GA6220@linux1> <20150408173901.GA11223@linux1> 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="qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Archives-Salt: 367a7dc8-6efa-4767-ab99-136fe73fcc21 X-Archives-Hash: c236314f75ca32810c2ac682c0330f42 --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:15:26PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: *snip* > No. In neither option would you move foo-1 to ~arch. In neither > option would you get repoman complaints. >=20 > In option 1 you would delete foo-1. Users of the arch will start > getting errors when they try to do updates, since foo-2 is keyword > masked. Users could just accept ~arch for foo-2 to fix this most > likely, though it may not work in some cases. The arch team can clean > up the depgraph at some point as well. You don't ever get repoman > complaints because the arch is set to dev/exp, and is ignored by > repoman. >=20 > In option 2 you would STILL delete foo-1, and you would also change > all of its reverse dependencies to ~arch as well. Users of the arch > would get errors when they try to do updates, since many packages they > have installed are now keyword masked, and foo-2 is also keyword > masked. Users would have to accept ~arch for all those packages to > restore normal operation. Later the arch maintainers could restore > the depgraph to what it was before while stabilizing foo-2, which > involves fixing many packages potentially, and even if it all ends up > as stable again users have tons of cruft in their config files. You > don't ever get repoman complaints because the depgraph was always > consistent. Option 2 could get complicated really fast. Consider a reverse dependency that has multiple forward dependencies: For example, foo-2 adds some functionality that depends on libbar. bas and bat also depend on libbar. libbar, bas and bat go stable before the deadline for foo-2. Given your description, it sounds like I would rm foo-1 and move libbar, bas and bat back to ~. Is that correct? If that's the case, option 1 is the best option. If we are willing to consider it, there may be another option. I haven't tested this yet, I'm just thinking off the top of my head. 3. Option 1, but don't set the profile status to dev or exp. The repoman messages that you would get on a stable arch if you do this might guide you to the remaining packages you need to move back to ~. Thoughts? William --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlUlrogACgkQblQW9DDEZTgWEACfRsDyd2uZsbII/n9k9NOxofuJ cfQAniu2l6XFhPjpOBQhxkxbx5vyeyaZ =V4ZR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--