Richard Freeman wrote:
Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower,
hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way
(asking for new devs, buying hardware, etc) go for mark it as
experimental and drop all stable keywords.
How is that better? Instead of dropping one stable package you'd end up
dropping all of them. A user could accept ~arch and get the same
behavior without any need to mark every other package in the tree
Accept ~arch for the random package which has lost the stable keyword a
random day? And next week .. which is going to be the next? The key is
the concept 'stable' and what you hope of it.
A long/middle-term solution for arches with very few resources instead
of generating problems to users seems a much better approach to me.
An arch could put a note to that effect in their installation
handbook. The user could then choose between a very narrow core of
stable packages or a wider universe of experimental ones.
Mixing software branches is very easy in the Gentoo world but it has
some problems. Are you going to install in your stable (production,
critial, important,...) system a combination of packages not tested
before? Because the arch teams or the maintainers are not going to test
every posible combination of core stable + universe of experimental
packages. This is why branches exists.
I guess the question is whether package maintainers should be forced to
maintain packages that are outdated by a significant period of time.
Suppose something breaks a package that is 3 versions behind stable on
all archs but one (where it is the current stable). Should the package
maintainer be required to fix it, rather than just delete it?
Maintainer has done all he can do, this means: that is broken, this
version fix the problem, go for it. Maintainer's job finishes here, now
it's the problem of your favorite arch team.
that the maintainer would be more likely to just leave it broken, which
doesn't exactly leave things better-off for the end users.
It's a different approach (maybe with the same bad results) but
different anyway. Leave the bug there, point the user to the bug and
maybe you can gain a new dev or an arch tester.
While the proposal made here is to throw random keyword problems to
users by policy (which in the case of amd64 some months ago would have
created a complete disaster).
I'm sure the maintainers of qt/baselayout/coreutils/etc will exercise
discretion on removing stable versions of these packages. However, for
some obscure utility that next-to-nobody uses, does it really hurt to
move from stable back to unstable if the arch maintainers can't keep up?
Special cases and special plans are allowed, what we are discussing here
is a general and accepted policy.
I guess it comes down to the driving issues. How big a problem are
stale packages (with the recent movement of a few platforms to
experimental, is this an already-solved problem?)? How big of a problem
do arch teams see keeping up with 30-days as (or maybe 60/90)? What are
the practical (rather than theoretical) ramifications?
An interesting discussion. Ask our council to listen all parts:
maintainers, current arch teams, the experience of mips, etc. and try to
make a good choice.
Jose Luis Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>