| 1 |
On 9/20/06, Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Stuart, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> The pages are correct. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Cool. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> He didn't called you a liar. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
"You haven't spoken to anyone on the genkernel or catalyst development |
| 11 |
teams." - was in response to me saying that I had. It's difficult to |
| 12 |
interpret that as anything other than calling me a liar. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> However, what you wrote is not quite |
| 15 |
> correct. You did talk to 2 people of a whole bunch of people. Neither |
| 16 |
> Chris, Lars, Tobias, Andrew nor me knew anything about it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
?? I never said we'd talked to all of you. I said we'd spoken to |
| 19 |
folks on the teams. What I said is correct. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> If I understand you correctly, you did talk about usage of catalyst, |
| 22 |
> but you never informed Releng (as a project) about your intentions. |
| 23 |
> And that is what Chris is complaining about. And I agree with him here. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Duly noted. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Your project sounds really interesting though. I'd like to ask you some |
| 28 |
> questions: |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> * Are you aiming to release vserver images/stage4s together with |
| 31 |
> the "normal" bianual releases? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Sorry, thought I'd covered this earlier (in fact, I know we did). |
| 34 |
We're not at the stage of having that answer. Our focus at the moment |
| 35 |
is on getting a working seed defined and tested. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
My personal feeling is that seeds are more likely to have a release |
| 38 |
schedule based on what their respective $UPSTREAMs are doing. |
| 39 |
$UPSTREAMs have their own, individual schedules; I believe that we |
| 40 |
need agility to match. Tying all seeds, irrespective of their |
| 41 |
purpose, to the release of our generic release media doesn't seem like |
| 42 |
the only answer that will work here. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> * If yes, are you going to use the same snapshots? |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
We haven't discussed it. Atm, we're focused on step 1, which is to |
| 47 |
get the seeds themselves working from our overlay. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> * If yes, for what arches do you want to release? |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
That will vary from seed to seed. There's no automatic need to try |
| 52 |
and release each seed on each and every arch that Gentoo as a whole |
| 53 |
supports. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
The advantage of the meta-package approach is that the bulk of the |
| 56 |
value of the seed will be available on any arch where the packages are |
| 57 |
keyworded. We don't need create release media for each and every seed |
| 58 |
for each and every arch. We can deliver that release media for the |
| 59 |
seed/arch combos where it makes sense. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
A blanket policy of creating release media for every seed on every |
| 62 |
arch doesn't seem practical or desirable. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
> * How do you want to implement the profiles? |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
We've only talked about profiles so far for a single seed. We'd |
| 67 |
prefer to inherit from the hardened profile, but we have a number of |
| 68 |
questions that we need to answer before we can be sure on that. We |
| 69 |
won't know for certain what the answer is until we've been able to |
| 70 |
define and field-test the LAMP Developer Desktop seed. We don't |
| 71 |
expect to deliver that seed until we've put out a LAMP Server seed for |
| 72 |
testing and feedback. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
> * Re: the meta-ebuilds you'd been talking about in this thread: Have you |
| 75 |
> yet considered to use the profiles' packages file? |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
Yes. We think that we'll be making use of that, but we don't want |
| 78 |
profiles to replace the meta-ebuilds. We're going to try both, and |
| 79 |
play with that for awhile to see where the balance best lies. |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
Best regards, |
| 82 |
Stu |
| 83 |
-- |
| 84 |
-- |
| 85 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives