Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:53:04
Message-Id: 1164815392.11408.13.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree by Steve Long
1 On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 06:37 +0000, Steve Long wrote:
2 > <snip> .. The one
3 > > disadvantage to my design is it needs infra. It needs it's own
4 > > repository and rsync.
5 > >
6 > What does that entail? Would a co-located server suffice?
7
8 Sure. It would be much better to simply use what we currently have,
9 though. Honestly, I was pursuing this with Infra a few months back, and
10 have since dropped it, due to time constraints. I plan on picking it
11 back up, as I said, so I don't know what is necessary at this point.
12
13 > > Now, the release trees are non-moving. The 2007.0-release tree is
14 > > *always* the 2007.0-release tree for as long as we decide to support it.
15 > > Likely, this support period would begin as a single release and get
16 > > extended as volunteers came around to support it. New releases get
17 > > their own tree.
18 > >
19 > Well count me in as a volunteer to help set this up and maintain an x86
20 > release. I'm a pretty good coder if that helps.
21
22 There wouldn't be an "x86 release" or anything. It would be the whole
23 thing. All or nothing.
24
25 > > Users who want to use the current portage tree get what they want.
26 > > Users who want a more stable tree get what they want. Basically,
27 > > everyone (hopefully) is happy, or at least as happy as we can feasibly
28 > > make them.
29 > >
30 > This all sounds great. Respect for the work you've already put in.
31
32 Well, Andrew Gaffney really helped out, as he's been doing the python
33 work to utilize portage to get the proper information to strip the tree.
34 Since these scripts were originally written and subsequently abandoned,
35 they've needed a little work. Andrew and I are working on this now to
36 try to get everything back to working order.
37
38 > From your post we need to add:
39 > > - strip all USE flags that aren't used from use.mask (per-profile)
40 > > - strip all packages that aren't available from package.mask
41 > > (per-profile)
42 >
43 > What language is the script implemented in?
44
45 There are several scripts. They are written in either python or bash.
46
47 > Wrt security updates, is it possible to tie into GLSAs so that we could
48 > automate updating packages that need it? By updating I mean adding the
49 > ebuilds and any dependencies (or dependants that might require updating.)
50
51 What were you expecting that we would do?
52
53 > Would that help in terms of having say, up to date GUI packages, or is it
54 > just easier to use overlays?
55
56 I have no desire to support any packages that weren't in the original
57 tree. If you want something we aren't providing, use an overlay.
58
59 > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
60 >
61 > > No version changes on any packages, except those which are necessary due
62 > > to a security violation, or a vulnerable package's dependencies.
63 > >
64 > I could imagine a situation where a dependant package (ie one using the
65 > package updated) would also require an update. It'd be rare though, so I
66 > guess it wouldn't need automating.
67
68 "or a vulnerable package's dependencies"
69
70 > > Something that would be useful would be for package maintainers that
71 > > wish to participate to perform further testing and validation on
72 > > packages in the release snapshot prior to its final freeze. This would
73 > > give us even more eyes on the tree and hopefully provide a much higher
74 > > quality snapshot once we're done.
75 >
76 > It sounds like it'd also make the releases in general have better QA. What
77 > do package/ herd maintainers think?
78
79 Absolutely.
80
81 One thing that I am working on doing with agaffney is building more and
82 more automated systems for doing testing. We have our Release
83 Engineering build box doing weekly builds of all of the stages from
84 scratch for i686. I plan on doing the same for i586/no-nptl, to cover
85 that facet, as well as amd64. Currently, I am testing against the
86 dev/2007.0 profile, but plan on testing against dev/2007.0/desktop and
87 dev/2007.0/server in addition to the dev/2007.0 profile.
88
89 I will also be adding a test suite on my Alpha and PPC machines at home.
90 Aside from this, I will be running catalyst tinderbox builds on at least
91 x86/amd64 for many packages that aren't included in the LiveCD/LiveDVD
92 sets. At some point, I'll likely be asking for suggestions on packages
93 to add to this testing.
94
95 --
96 Chris Gianelloni
97 Release Engineering Strategic Lead
98 Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
99 Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
100 Gentoo Foundation

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Versioning the tree Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>