On 22 August 2013 18:01, 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).
The problem is with reverse dependencies. We had this a while ago with Qt libraries, and I ended up needing to mask a whole list of packages on two slacker arches. That's more trouble than it's worth for me. In my opinion we should only bother with stabilization on the most widely used arches: amd64, x86, and arm. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
