Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds not getting in :(

[George Shapovalov]

On Wednesday 23 April 2003 17:32, Stroller wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 02:17  pm, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 Apr 2003 13:59, Frantz Dhin wrote:
> >> ... maybe we could make a
> >> new keyword? x86 for stable, ~x86 for unstable, and ^x86 for lunatic?
> > I couldn't agree more!
> Me, either! I don't know that "lunatic" is the best word, but it seems
> to me that an additional hierarchy [0] allows for a framework more
> flexible & extensible for end lusers. As I understand it builds with the
Unfortunately this is not that easy. Just accepting ebuild in and letting them 
rot is either a dead-end or a security breach (or both :). Think about what 
to do with them as they get tested and about possible submisisons overlappig 
already existing *core* ebuilds, yek.. ).

Please take a look at #1523 to see what's on the plate ;). Only bear in mind, 
that almost everything in that proposal was written before even KEYWORDS came 
around, so terminology and, well, pretty much all implementation details are 
out of date by now.. However the general structure still applies and contains 
few more (relatively minor as compared to KEYWORDS and gentoo-stats/stable 
(AKA voting system in that text)) additions.

I am afraid it is still too early to talk about implementation details (except 
may be starategic things), as we need to complete the internal restructuring 
we are attempting right now (and convincing more devs, that we need this kind 
of thing implemented, as this was not universally accepted yet :)). But the 
logical structure can and IMHO should be discussed.

One thing I can already tell for sure, is that security of any such system 
will be an issue of paramount importance if this kind of thing to be 
accepted. Namely guarantying by implementation that some unassisted 
submission does not wreak a havoc on user system no mater what profile that 
user runs (possibly except "definitely-unstable-you've-been-warned" or 
whatever it's going to be called :)).
There are of course more issues of lesser but still major importance to be 
considered, such as efficiency on all levels...

> [1] Am I correctly appreviating "^86, ^PPC or whatever" here? I'm not
> doing too well tonight.
That'd work, especially if you spell appreviate as abbreviate and make ppc 
lowercase ;).

George

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list