On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Mike Gilbert <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Jeroen Roovers <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The solution is to have people with an actual interest in a specific
>> architecture determine whether stabilising a package is viable, and
>> taking sensible action, like dropping stable keywords where applicable.
>
> If these people do not actually exist or are not doing their job by
> culling the depgraph appropriately, we should really drop a number of
> archs from "stable" status.
I mostly agree, modulo the comment about people "doing their jobs".
Arch testing completely sucks.
Having built many stages for an "unstable" arch (mips) has taught me
one thing: it's awful being unstable-only. There's no end to the
compilation failures and other such headaches, none of which have
anything at all to do with the specific architecture.
Short of adding a middle level ("stable, wink wink nudge nudge") where
things at least compile, I think the current situation is actually
significantly better than the alternative of dropping them to
unstable.
