Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi...@gentoo.org> posted 1244672807.6190.35.ca...@homer.ob.libexec.de, excerpted below, on Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:26:47 +0200:
>> * The Council votes for final approval, pending Portage implementation. > > Looks good so far. > >> * Portage implements it in ~arch. People start using it in ~arch. > > I'd propose: Portage implements it in ~arch. People can start using it > in overlays. The problem with that is that it's a NOOP. People can use whatever they want in overlays, already, a feature that's a good part of their dynamic. Thus, "can start using it in overlays" is entirely meaningless. Now one could add the single word "official" in there, as in "official overlays", defining that term much as layman does. (Actually, it appears the layman manpage uses the terms "fully supported" and "non-official", not specifically the term "official", altho the contrasting "non- official" does have the implication of making "fully supported" overlays synonymous with "official overlays".) >> * Portage goes stable. People are allowed to start using it in stable >> for things that aren't deps of anything super-critical. > > I'd propose: Portage goes stable. 4 Weeks thereafter people are allowed > to start using it for things that aren't deps of anything > super-critical. Question. Was the omission of a specific ~arch allowed step deliberate? You went from "allowed in overlays" to "allowed in stable", without a stop in ~arch. Either it was deliberate and an reason would have been useful, or it was simply overlooked. (FWIW, a policy that ~arch portage of an approved EAPI allows ~arch packages, stable portage allows stable packages, but with the cost of putting it in ~arch before stable portage has it stated explicitly -- that anyone choosing to do so should be prepared to revert to a previous EAPI should a security bump require it before portage stabilizes -- that sort of policy works for me. Problems we've had can thus be explained as not making that cost of following ~arch portage with ~arch packages explicit, I believe, so make it explicit and let the maintainers then choose based on that. Perhaps add the additional caveat that it may ONLY be done with the signoff of a backup maintainer and/or the supporting project as well, in the hopefully unusual case that the maintainer that did the conversion goes MIA when a security bug comes up to press the matter, so there's always someone else that understands the situation well enough to handle the revert to a stable EAPI as necessary. However that's not a strongly held position and doesn't mean I oppose the above, only that I'd like clarification thereof.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
