On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:13 +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > I don't think that's what was being proposed, though. The question was > > really the old complaint about slow architectures; the "-* arch" > > solution sounds like the most reasonable definition of "dropping" > > keywords, in the absence of AT communication otherwise. > > Dropping keywords and specifying -* are a world apart of each other. > > The former means that it is not ready for wide stable or testing users, > the latter means that it has been tested to not work at all; > furthermore, we need to explicitly specify which arches in that case. > The complaint is slow to stable arches - by specifying "-* arch" it would signify that ONLY that arch uses that version of the ebuild - and it would be up to the arch team to remove it once they've stabled the new version - and considering the complaint is only about slow arches, there's nothing additional to specify in there - it's REMOVING arches that have stabled a newer version already, so they are unaffected.
On the other hand, you're suggesting that we don't actually bother with stabling things - or actually testing that things are properly stable, allowing anyone to decide when something is stable, whether they have access to the hardware to actually test that it works. You and a few others keep talking in the theoretical while I've shown an actual problem but you and the others conveniently ignore ACTUAL problems in favor of your possible problems. Please stop.
