On 12/20/2017 06:58 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > There already is an overlay for dying packages, it is called graveyard, > but no one is putting things there. > > This email conflates old dying packages with new versions, which are a > completely separate issue. >
Lack of new versions *is* dying. But I can make a package not-dying in a few seconds by merging a PR, so long as you don't expect me to do the (relatively high) level of QA required for ~arch. > If a new version of a package is known to cause wide scale breakage, it > goes in package.mask until the breakage is resolved. Otherwise, putting > it in ~ is fine. I don't see the need for another level of keywords. The quality of ~arch is its own worst enemy; these days, stable packages are just old ~arch packages. Users and developers expect ~arch to work, and we have no real policy or documentation stating that it won't. Many people will tell you that ~arch works better than stable, because it gets fixed faster. The new level of keyword would avoid screwing all of those ~arch users at once, by not suddenly murdering the quality of their tree. From the outset, the new level of keyword would have to have a description like "only use this if you are stupid" to fulfill its intended role.
