Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:12:55
Message-Id: 5213CDBD.1010904@orlitzky.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies by William Hubbs
1 On 08/20/2013 02:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
2 > My question is, how can we improve our stabilization procedures/policies
3 > so we can convince people not to run production servers on ~arch and
4 > keep the stable tree more up to date?
5
6 Just delete /etc/conf.d/net with an ~arch update every once in a while,
7 that should convince them =)
8
9 Stable is fine for the most part. The bitrot complaint is basically "I
10 can't be bothered to add packages to
11 /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords individually."
12
13 Most of our servers have one or two packages in there, for which I've
14 already filed a stabilization bug. Web servers are the worst, because
15 we have to listen to our customers occasionally. Here is our largest
16 package.accept_keywords (comments added):
17
18 > =dev-php/pecl-zendopcache-7.0.2 ~amd64
19
20 PHP 5.5 is coming to stable soon, so we wanted to test this early. It
21 belongs in ~arch, though. Nothing to see here.
22
23 > # Should get this stabled.
24 > =dev-php/smarty-3.1.12 ~amd64
25
26 Just filed https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481780
27
28 > =sys-boot/grub-2.00-r2 ~amd64
29
30 We upgraded grub at the same time as the udev mess. The upgrade failed
31 on several systems (which needed to be repartitioned, ugh), but the
32 upgrade is opt-in since grub-legacy keeps working.
33
34 > # Our overlay
35 > */*::viabit-overlay ~amd64
36
37 Nothing to see here. Our company overlay.
38
39 > net-mail/postfix-logwatch ~amd64
40
41 This is stuck in Sunrise. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=309075
42
43 > # https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=448558
44 > # https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=475962
45 > =dev-php/PEAR-Mail_Mime-1.8.8 ~amd64
46
47 This isn't even in the tree, so it doesn't count. But it does fix an
48 annoyance, so if anyone is listening, please bump it!
49
50 > # Redmine
51 > =dev-ruby/builder-3.1.4 ~amd64
52 > =dev-ruby/rails-3.2.13 ~amd64
53 > =dev-ruby/railties-3.2.13 ~amd64
54 > =dev-ruby/actionmailer-3.2.13 ~amd64
55 > =dev-ruby/builder-3.0.4 ~amd64
56 > =dev-ruby/arel-3.0.2-r1 ~amd64
57 > =dev-ruby/rack-cache-1.2 ~amd64
58 > =dev-ruby/rack-openid-1.3.1 ~amd64
59 > =dev-ruby/thor-0.15.2 ~amd64
60 > =dev-ruby/activemodel-3.2.13 ~amd64
61 > =dev-ruby/sprockets-2.2.2 ~amd64
62 > =dev-ruby/sass-rails-3.2.6 ~amd64
63 > =dev-ruby/coffee-script-source-1.6.2 ~amd64
64 > =dev-ruby/activerecord-3.2.13 ~amd64
65 > =dev-ruby/rack-ssl-1.3.2 ~amd64
66 > =dev-ruby/mail-2.5.3 ~amd64
67 > =dev-ruby/activeresource-3.2.13 ~amd64
68 > =net-libs/nodejs-0.10.15 ~amd64
69 > =dev-ruby/journey-1.0.4 ~amd64
70 > =dev-ruby/hike-1.2.3 ~amd64
71 > =dev-ruby/i18n-0.6.4 ~amd64
72 > =dev-ruby/coffee-rails-3.2.2 ~amd64
73 > =dev-ruby/treetop-1.4.10-r1 ~amd64
74 > =dev-ruby/activesupport-3.2.13 ~amd64
75 > =dev-ruby/coffee-script-2.2.0 ~amd64
76 > =dev-ruby/polyglot-0.3.3 ~amd64
77 > =dev-ruby/jquery-rails-2.3.0 ~amd64
78 > =dev-ruby/actionpack-3.2.13 ~amd64
79 > =dev-ruby/execjs-1.4.0 ~amd64
80 > =dev-ruby/uglifier-1.3.0 ~amd64
81 > =dev-ruby/rack-test-0.6.2 ~amd64
82 > =dev-ruby/bcrypt-ruby-3.0.1 ~amd64
83 > =dev-ruby/mysql2-0.3.11 ~amd64
84 > =dev-ruby/ruby-net-ldap-0.3.1 ~amd64
85
86 Ok, this one is ridiculous. The stable version of Rails is 2.3.18, and
87 3.0 was released almost exactly three years ago. Every time rails-3.x
88 gets bumped, I have to manually update the entire list above. I need
89 to do it on an x86 server as well, so I get to do it twice; I can't
90 even copy/paste the list.
91
92 It sucks, but it's still better than running ~arch. Problems like this
93 should be fixed, but if you decide it's easier to
94 ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~arch" than deal with the exceptions, you're asking for
95 trouble.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org>
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o>
[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: stabilization policies Jonathan Callen <jcallen@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o>