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

2008-12-10 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 19:08 Mon 17 Nov , Tobias Scherbaum wrote: That would people require to use common sense. The past has shown that people tend to have different views of what common sense might be in a given case. Therefore policy in that aspect needs to be as clear and understandable as possible to

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

2008-12-10 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 13:13 Mon 10 Nov , Mark Loeser 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 feedback on this proposal, if you

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

2008-11-15 Thread Matti Bickel
Tobias Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older version even if it is the most recent stable

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

2008-11-13 Thread Tobias Scherbaum
Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older version even if it is the most recent stable version for a particular arch. What if this would

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

2008-11-11 Thread Peter Volkov
Why it's so hard not to delete ebuilds from the tree? Also it was already discussed that if maintainer wishes he/she could drop some keywords from old ebuild, e.g. if you have more recent version of package stabilized on arch, just drop arch keyword from the old ebuild. В Пнд, 10/11/2008 в 20:21

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

2008-11-11 Thread Jose Luis Rivero
Mark Loeser wrote: Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Mark, I think you are looking at the problem only with the ebuild maintainer hat put on. We have other players in our business, being one of them the users. This policy would bring too many problems to them so .. nono by my side. I

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

2008-11-11 Thread Jose Luis Rivero
Richard Freeman wrote: Jose Luis Rivero wrote: I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower, hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way (asking for new devs, buying hardware, etc) go for mark it as experimental and drop all stable keywords.

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

2008-11-11 Thread Ferris McCormick
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 11:18 +0100, Jose Luis Rivero wrote: Richard Freeman wrote: Jose Luis Rivero wrote: I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower, hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way (asking for new devs, buying hardware, etc)

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

2008-11-10 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:34 -0500 Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arch teams will normally have 30 days from the day a bug was filed, keyworded STABLEREQ, the arch was CCed, and the maintainer either filed the bug or commented that it was OK to stabilize (clock starts when all of these

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

2008-11-10 Thread Mart Raudsepp
On E, 2008-11-10 at 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older version even if it is the most recent stable version for a

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

2008-11-10 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Mart Raudsepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On E, 2008-11-10 at 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete

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

2008-11-10 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Mark Loeser wrote: snip I really don't understand why it is better to break the stable trees of $ARCH instead of just making them all ~ARCH. (ie. ~mips, ~x86-fbsd, etc). If the $ARCH doesn't have the manpower to do stable reqs then they don't have the manpower to fix broken stable trees

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

2008-11-10 Thread Santiago M. Mola
El lun, 10-11-2008 a las 13:13 -0500, Mark Loeser escribió: Ebuild Stabilization Time Arch teams will normally have 30 days from the day a bug was filed, keyworded STABLEREQ, the arch was CCed, and the maintainer either filed the bug or commented that it was OK to stabilize (clock starts

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

2008-11-10 Thread Jose Luis Rivero
Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older version even if it is the most recent stable version for a particular arch. Mark, I think you

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

2008-11-10 Thread Mark Loeser
Jose Luis Rivero [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Mark Loeser wrote: Removing Stable Ebuilds If an ebuild meets the time criteria above, and there are no technical issues preventing stabilization, then the maintainer MAY choose to delete an older version even if it is the most recent stable

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

2008-11-10 Thread Richard Freeman
Jose Luis Rivero wrote: I would prefer to analyze the causes of the slacker arch (manpower, hardware, etc) and if we are not able to solve the problem by any way (asking for new devs, buying hardware, etc) go for mark it as experimental and drop all stable keywords. How is that better?