Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Rainer Groesslinger <rainer.groesslinger@...>
Subject: Re: Is there a process for marking ebuilds stable?
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 01:00:51 +0200
On Monday 14 April 2003 00:25, Brad Laue wrote:
> Given the increasing size of the portage tree I'm becoming concerned
> about the rate at which ebuilds move from the unstable ~arch keyword to
> the stable one.

correct, same here.
Additionally there are many ebuilds in the tree that should be removed 
again...for example most of the game mods (not because I don't like gamers 
just because e.g. osp for quake3 isn't maintained although quite some time 
passed already since the last osp release(s) and in a multiplayer game it's 
useless to have an old version of something ;)

> Has a formalized process been discussed for this? The first thing that
> comes to mind is a set of tinderboxes designed to build packages with
> predictable flags sending reports to each ebuild maintainer.

Problem: Gentoo doesn't have maintainers !
It has been discussed to introduce a MAINTAINER="xxxx@g.o" thing in the 
ebuilds but it seems like the idea got dropped by the core developers (or 
didn't even get attention, I don't know).

The only real maintainer is carpaski for portage, most other packages are 
worked on by more or less "Freelancers"...
Sure, many people are related to something, but you can't see who is the 
maintainer of a certain package.
Just imagine...there are some packages where version 0.1 was submitted by dev 
A, 0.2 by dev B and 0.2.1 by dev C and 0.3 again by dev B etc.

Not, that this is bad at all, but it would be much better to have "real" 
maintainers like almost every other distribution has, too.

> The second is more practical and within reach; advocacy of
> stable.gentoo.org, and a policy of accepting a package as stable when
> five or more users have vouched for it and two weeks have passed without
> a bug report.

stable.gentoo.org is _great_ ! Thanks so much to blizzy (unfortunatly he's not 
in the dev team any more). The problem here is that this site must be pushed 
quite hard because there are packages in the tree only a few people use and 
if those people don't use stable.gentoo.org they won't be stable anytime soon 
or might - in a bad case - be pushed into stable because nobody complain 
although it's just because nobody uses stable.gentoo.org


Rainer Groesslinger

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies:
Re: Is there a process for marking ebuilds stable?
-- Fredrik Jagenheim
Re: Is there a process for marking ebuilds stable?
-- Jon Portnoy
Re: Is there a process for marking ebuilds stable?
-- Rainer Groesslinger
References:
Is there a process for marking ebuilds stable?
-- Brad Laue
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Is there a process for marking ebuilds stable?
Next by thread:
Re: Is there a process for marking ebuilds stable?
Previous by date:
Re: GUI installer
Next by date:
Re: Is there a process for marking ebuilds stable?


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.