On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 15:46:23 +0100 Jeroen Roovers <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But, I guess there are two major cases: > > - Versions that cannot be stabilized due they not working on that > > arch any longer > > It's probably a good idea to package.mask the affected versions on the > arch profile(s) (with references to bug reports, and so on) so all > users of that profile get to see it. Treat it like a "last rites" > process. Currently that's the only way for users to find out when and > why a package becomes unsupported on a given profile, and it should > work well enough. Give them thirty days to respond or become arch team > members or ATs or just give the nod to an arch developer to say "it > works" - it may even lead to actual stabilisation of a newer ebuild. > > > - Versions that are not stabilized because arch team doesn't have > > the man power to do that. > > As above, package.mask would be a good intermediate solution, > communicating the problem to the arch users for, say, thirty days. Of > course it may just delay solving the problem when a new set of > stabilisations is due and again no one responds. +1, see an example that I wrote earlier at the bottom of this mail: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90083/match=Consider%20this%20instead -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : [email protected] GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
