Tom Wijsman posted on Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:43:24 +0200 as excerpted: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:13:16 +0400 Mikle Kolyada <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 22.04.2014 21:59, Mike Gilbert пишет: >> >> > Ok, then the stable keyword is going to get lost when I drop old >> > versions. >> >> Vapier can restore stable keywords for newest version if needed, i >> think > > Repeating that is a flashing experience for the minor arches users. > > Stabilizing on minor arches this way feels more like a regression, than > that it is an improvement; the promise for a stable experience can't be > fulfilled like that.
Caveat: Subject to Vapier's reply. I can't read minds and could indeed be very wrong in my thinking here... Yes, but... I think stable keywords on such archs must be used differently, and by virtue of necessity, mean something else than they mean on more mainstream archs. Consider, on such archs people aren't going to be able to reliably run a stable keyword system anyway, because there's simply not enough stable keyworded packages to do so. In such a situation, then, what is the value/meaning of a stable keyword at all? I'd suggest it is simply this, as adapted from the traditional mainstream arch meaning for a situation where running all-stable simply isn't possible: A stable keyword on a package for an arch where ~arch must be the norm, can only mean, "Yes, this one has actually been verified to work reasonably well, without serious known regressions." IOW, in a minor arch normally ~arch keyworded environment, a stable keyword, while a system can't require it as a system can on a mainstream arch, can still mean: "This version is more tested on this arch than others, consider trying it first." Additionally, on some packages it /might/ also be a hint: "If you have problems traced to a group of packages with this one being one of them, look at the other packages first, since this one has more testing than the others and thus is less likely to be the problem." With this meaning, on minor archs stable keyworded packages could still come and go, without the "flashing" effect mentioned above, because stable keywords alone cannot be used to build and maintain the system. But stable keywords would still have meaning where they appear, and package maintainers shouldn't mess with them, while (unlike mainstream archs) still being free to drop last-stable versions without issue, exactly /because/ the stable keyword has a someone different meaning in this case. Repeated caveat: This is what I'd take stable keywords to mean on minor non-stable archs with current policies. Subject to Vapier's reply confirming, modifying or saying I'm all wet. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
