| 1 |
Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 11:48 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote: |
| 3 |
>> (GDP): you give us the info, we'll document it for you. Or I will at least. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Well, the changes are as outlined in my first email. |
| 6 |
> The user changes are mainly a few variables in the /etc/conf.d/* files |
| 7 |
> that baselayout ships. For example a few have been removed and a few |
| 8 |
> have been added, and a few have changed. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Yeah, I planned on doing some heavy reading of the new stuff, but I hope |
| 11 |
I can get you all alone (heh heh heh) for awhile to go over questions |
| 12 |
that will surely pop up. In case things like new networking configs |
| 13 |
aren't intuitive, or whatever. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>> 3) How long will 1.x be kept stable? (This affects how long the old |
| 16 |
>> instructions are in the handbooks etc.) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Good question. We normally keep at least one major revision prior to the |
| 19 |
> current stable in the tree. They can stay in the tree indefinitely I |
| 20 |
> suppose, but the GDP should only follow the current stable. Maybe |
| 21 |
> archive the handbook? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Archiving the handbook isn't possible. The only thing we archive for |
| 24 |
historical purposes are the networkless handbooks, in |
| 25 |
/doc/en/handbook/2006.0/, 2006.1/, etc. I'm thinking that if |
| 26 |
baselayout-2 is the way of the future, then as soon as it's stabled for |
| 27 |
all arches (see below for a bit more) then we should pretty much just |
| 28 |
document that exclusively in all handbooks & docs. That's where a |
| 29 |
migration guide will be so crucial. Since the thing can't be slotted, |
| 30 |
and it's a forced upgrade (short of masking, but BAH to those users that |
| 31 |
do it), I don't think we need to document two completely different |
| 32 |
systems if they're both stable. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
>> 5) Do you have a rough estimate (month, 3 weeks, 5 weeks, what?) on when |
| 35 |
>> the first arches might be stabilizing 2.x? |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> No. |
| 38 |
> If the RC's prove stable and no serious regressions are reported for a |
| 39 |
> month then we'll probably release a final 2.0.0 and get arch teams to |
| 40 |
> mark stable a week later, or right away if no last minute changes have |
| 41 |
> been made. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
What'd really be nice is if it goes stable for all arches (or at least |
| 44 |
all of the ones that matter, subjectively) either in time or after the |
| 45 |
next release. Otherwise, there's going to be some more complications |
| 46 |
from users who install from media containing old baselayout-1.x and have |
| 47 |
to deal with the new 2.x right away. I guess we'll see. /me pokes |
| 48 |
wolf31o2. ;) |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> Most of the documentation should still apply. I've tried to be as |
| 51 |
> compatible as possible - the one possible exception being networking as |
| 52 |
> baselayout-1 used bash arrays extensively. But we still support that |
| 53 |
> if /bin/sh is bash, which it is by default for Gentoo/Linux |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Yeah. Though I still don't know the whole story, I anticipate that |
| 56 |
updating the networking configs will be the biggest headache. |
Archives