1 |
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 15:42 -0700, Peter Abrahamsen wrote: |
2 |
> Hi Haubi, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I'm not sure I've spent enough time thinking about these things to |
5 |
> give you very good feedback, but as an enterprise-ish user, I'm pretty |
6 |
> excited about the direction you're going. |
7 |
|
8 |
Thank you! |
9 |
|
10 |
> |
11 |
> Perhaps I've misunderstood your proposal, |
12 |
|
13 |
Seems you have understood my proposal quite correctly. |
14 |
|
15 |
> but I guess I'd prefer a |
16 |
> solution for stabilization of packages that doesn't require me to make |
17 |
> any alterations to the upstream ebuilds. If I could simply "apply" |
18 |
> keywords to package versions from e.g. /etc/portage/package.whatever, |
19 |
> that'd be simpler. My work then is just in maintaining an overlay with |
20 |
> special packages/package versions required by my systems, and bumping |
21 |
> up the stable versions of critical packages, and not with merging |
22 |
> ebuild changes. |
23 |
|
24 |
This is a different - nevertheless still valid - approach. |
25 |
But you still have to copy otherways unchanged ebuilds+files+distfiles |
26 |
into your local tree&mirror, as they might drop out from main |
27 |
tree&mirror while your releases still include them. |
28 |
|
29 |
> |
30 |
> If I've misunderstood something, perhaps you could walk me through a |
31 |
> possible workflow? |
32 |
|
33 |
I think I'm going a different way: cancel this glep, use already |
34 |
established methods instead. I plan to do my own stable keywords in my |
35 |
local tree, and when users want to have more packages, they simply can |
36 |
use the main tree as overlay. |
37 |
|
38 |
/haubi/ |
39 |
|
40 |
> |
41 |
> Cheers, |
42 |
> Peter |
43 |
> |
44 |
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Michael Haubenwallner <haubi@g.o> wrote: |
45 |
> > Hi, |
46 |
> > |
47 |
> > do we already know how to do Prefix keywords in the main tree? [1] |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> > Based on [2] I've hacked up some glep draft [3], although without any |
50 |
> > Prefix pointers (yet). |
51 |
> > |
52 |
> > What do you (Prefix devs and users) think about these definitions by the |
53 |
> > means of my glep draft (take "Enterprise" as "Redistribution" here): |
54 |
> > |
55 |
> > 1) "Gentoo Prefix" is a "Redistribution of Gentoo Linux", |
56 |
> > and thus the glep applies with: |
57 |
> > + PREFIX_KEYWORDS in the ebuilds |
58 |
> > + ACCEPT_DISTRO_KEYWORDS='PREFIX' in profile (make.conf?) |
59 |
> > |
60 |
> > 2) "Gentoo Prefix" is a standalone distribution, and does: |
61 |
> > + share KEYWORDS in the ebuilds with "Gentoo Linux" |
62 |
> > + ACCEPT_DISTRO_KEYWORDS='GENTOO' picks Prefix keywords only. |
63 |
> > or |
64 |
> > + introduce new PREFIXKEYWORDS in the ebuilds |
65 |
> > + ACCEPT_DISTRO_KEYWORDS='GENTOO' resolves to $PREFIXKEYWORDS |
66 |
> > + "Enterprise Prefix" would have ENTERPRISE_PREFIXKEYWORDS in ebuilds |
67 |
> > |
68 |
> > IMO, the most convenient/useable/obvious one (in practical sense) is 1), |
69 |
> > although the more "correct" one (in political sense?) might be 2). |
70 |
> > |
71 |
> > [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/58443 |
72 |
> > [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/60566 |
73 |
> > [3] http://dev.gentoo.org/~haubi/glep-distro-keywords.html |
74 |
> > |
75 |
> > Thanks! |
76 |
> > |
77 |
> > /haubi/ |
78 |
> > -- |
79 |
> > Michael Haubenwallner |
80 |
> > Gentoo on a different level |
81 |
> > |
82 |
> > |
83 |
> > |
84 |
> |
85 |
-- |
86 |
Michael Haubenwallner |
87 |
Gentoo on a different level |