On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> >>> wrote: >>>> Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or >>>> exp. I can't see how we can implement something between >>>> stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may not be >>>> stable? If this is the case, then I believe ~arch is more preferred. >>> >>> I haven't read much into it, but Fedora has a concept of "Secondary >>> Architectures." I think it would make sense if we could keep stable >>> keywords for them, but not prevent maintainers from needing to wait on >>> them to stabilize other packages. >> >> I don't see how that would work. You can't remove older versions >> unless a newer one is stabilized, or you'd break the tree. > > Sort-of. You'd break it in that users would have to accept ~arch to > keep that package, or remove it. It is really no different than > dropping stable keywords which forces them to do the same thing, > except that you're doing it one package at a time. > > You could impose a time limit to respond to the STABLEREQ prior to > removal (30-60 days or something). > > I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords > would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages > might still keep them. That might actually be the right balance - if > the arch teams focus on just system or other important packages they > might be able to find the time to keep up rather than trying to boil > the ocean. > > Rich >
What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
