On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
In that case, "doing your job" would mean dropping stable keywords on everything but the bare necessities, and refusing to stabilize packages outside of that group without good cause.
