On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: >> It seems like the simplest solution in these cases is to just have >> them focus on @system packages for the stable tree, and let users >> deal with more breakage outside of that set > > Why not make stable completely optional for arch teams? >
Stable already is completely optional for the arch teams, and that is why we have concerns over stable requests taking forever on minor archs in the first place. If the package wasn't marked as stable in the first place the maintainer could just drop old versions anytime they saw fit, but in the cases that cause problems the arch team exercises their option to stabilize something, and then they also exercise their option to not stabilize something newer. Rich
