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 3400B138A6C for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 13:33:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D583E09A6; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 13:33:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (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 9493DE098A for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 13:33:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ignm3 with SMTP id m3so29251277ign.0 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:33:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=OKhtVipb8ZH9YTW9PZJC6aFzinZUTbtNgKciZGc/sNg=; b=Wi0gqL+S4EJfuAcursMt5Bwol5grGiXDkyGiQBaY/8lSpeqmtKMukjKuKqLwkovAz2 nWPaH1E3ZnKaUbQ+0p/gCXu1ZhKRk7zsc0LxXRELvbJ9MlCv7tjV2nJRm1MiMIdfCok4 GAU7ra4Y1xvpQ9VMw+9fHnPBXTn6B3z7vdD6QvwhQUy1ZS6/vH60Ho3QdxPYhZauFMJp JEiSzT3ByYFAl1UgInBl/Q503OtyPi0X8QeYcQCmQCGea0WV0AgknkncEQrDmheT7xii xm2GVMzff+c00Qig2NzaI9KbA8z2K/ZrBp0B8swqoJSxyH7T77DUjFWDY/eZFBoM1pDn WCPg== 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 X-Received: by 10.50.83.37 with SMTP id n5mr11839718igy.41.1428500019878; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.48.198 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 06:33:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150408115116.GA6220@linux1> References: <20150405195044.GA2917@linux1> <20150406002706.4aff7e4dda27a25a5c106b50@gentoo.org> <5521BF9C.5060809@gentoo.org> <1428353540.2041.11.camel@gentoo.org> <55246753.5060902@gentoo.org> <20150408115116.GA6220@linux1> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:33:39 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ED-tv2DfE7_5Y3NtrY8c1AU_64k Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 2c766e2d-cda9-4beb-86ca-b42699c583ce X-Archives-Hash: 2c64f69f4a5bf2c9c34c2d27621becb5 On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 7:51 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > Changing the status of the arches in repoman is all I thought we were > discussing. I wasn't saying we should revert or remove stable keywords > for them. I think that's what vapier is doing with s390, sh, etc. > > Marking the arches dev or exp in the profiles means that repoman, by > default, doesn't complain about broken depgraphs for them. Well, we really have a few options as far as imposing changes from outside the arch team goes (the arch team can clean up its own depgraph, of course, but presumably we'd be taking action only if they didn't). 1. We could make the arches dev/exp as you point out, and then allow maintainers to just drop stable versions and break their depgraph. 2. We could keep the arches as stable, but then allow maintainers to do massive keyword changes when they drop otherwise-stable versions. That wouldn't break the depgraph, but it would mean that at random times huge numbers of packages could have their keywords change. Neither option is really ideal. I think that #1 is the lesser evil, but that does mean that we need to make a distro-wide decision. The advantage of #2 is that it basically is a NOP unless the arch team actually reaches 90 days old. I think it is better to just have the Council make a decision rather than kicking the can, but that said if an arch team is willing to state clearly that they intend to proactively clean up their depgraph and that they want to keep stable keywords, I'm fine with checking back in a month rather than de-stabilizing them next week. -- Rich