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 ED8621389F5 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 14:31:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6706FE089F; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 14:31:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7138AE0899 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2015 14:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YeP6d-0004qQ-9Q for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:31:27 +0200 Received: from ppp118-209-198-73.lns20.mel8.internode.on.net ([118.209.198.73]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:31:27 +0200 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-198-73.lns20.mel8.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 16:31:27 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 01:31:15 +1100 Message-ID: References: <20150402141428.GA31638@oregano.home.lan> <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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-198-73.lns20.mel8.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 In-Reply-To: <201504032214.01310.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 1285e962-ea66-48d8-b4cb-bf6ffdf042e6 X-Archives-Hash: dd2e03715f5acb2fb201eba5e7126fad 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.