[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-30 Thread Ryan Hill
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:34 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Instead of addressing archs as being slackers or not, this addresses it as a more granular layer of looking at ebuilds. Thanks to Richard Freeman for the initial proposal that I based this off of. Please give me

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-30 Thread Peter Volkov
В Вск, 30/11/2008 в 16:59 -0600, Ryan Hill пишет: On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:34 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [proposal] I know it's not directly related to stabilization, but lately people have been removing the only keyworded package for the mips arch, under the excuse that's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-18 Thread Daniel Gryniewicz
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:08 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:57 -0500 Daniel Gryniewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 18:38 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: snip The maintainer MUST NOT NEVER EVER NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT remove the latest stable ebuild of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-18 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:57:23 -0500 Daniel Gryniewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not about arches just being slackers. This is about arches denying stable (or even ~) for some reason. If I cannot drop an old version of something just because the new version doesn't (and won't) work on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-18 Thread Daniel Gryniewicz
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 17:50 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:57:23 -0500 Daniel Gryniewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not about arches just being slackers. This is about arches denying stable (or even ~) for some reason. If I cannot drop an old version of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-18 Thread Daniel Gryniewicz
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 15:18 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:57:23 -0500 Daniel Gryniewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:08 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:57 -0500 Daniel Gryniewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-11-16

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-18 Thread Ryan Hill
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:04:33 -0500 Daniel Gryniewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Honestly, I don't want to be a dick to the arch teams. I really don't. But I *also* don't want them (or policy) to be a dick to me. That's my whole point; that requirement of never removing the last stable ebuild,

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-17 Thread Duncan
Tobias Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:08:39 +0100: Process might be as easy as CC'ing a arch-tinderbox on a bug, a script does parse the bug number out of the mail being sent out and using gatt it catches the ebuild to test,

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-17 Thread Ryan Hill
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:10:57 -0500 Daniel Gryniewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 18:38 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: snip The maintainer MUST NOT NEVER EVER NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT remove the latest stable ebuild of an arch without the approval of the arch team or he/she

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-16 Thread Ryan Hill
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:34 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY [...] mark that ebuild as stable on every keyworded arch (that has a stable keyword). If an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-11 Thread Ferris McCormick
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 17:26 +, Duncan wrote: Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:24:50 +0100: Words like production, critical and important can be applied as easily to the state of a company's or nation's system as to a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-11 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:02 + (UTC) Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's a production, critical, important system, then what is one doing installing updates on it directly without verifying them on a generally identical test system first? Now you're ridiculing the idea of having a

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-11 Thread Duncan
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:12:41 +0100: You did it again in the IOW quotation above explaining it as a triple emphasis instead of what it was intended to denote, namely as a few possible examples of the meaning of

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds

2008-11-11 Thread Duncan
Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:18:34 +0100: Mixing software branches is very easy in the Gentoo world but it has some problems. Are you going to install in your stable (production, critial, important,...) system a