| 1 |
On 21/11/2007, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Per subject, let's have some discussion on stable keywords in Prefix. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I've always been against them, while others would like to have them. |
| 7 |
> I've basically been against them simply because I don't have time to |
| 8 |
> also maintain a stable tree/prefix/install. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> With the number of ebuilds in the tree increasing, I simply cannot cope |
| 11 |
> with the volume any more as I used to do. This is mainly the case for |
| 12 |
> when I'm syncing the tree and approving each ebuild manually, merging |
| 13 |
> conflicts etc. I have no time to compile each package before I commit |
| 14 |
> it, but I try to check it at least unpacks. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Now I was wondering, maybe I could sync new ebuilds into ~arch, while we |
| 17 |
> then make ebuilds arch when they appear to work on the works. Not sure |
| 18 |
> how much this really "fixes", but just a random thought to reduce the |
| 19 |
> damage of semi-automagic syncing... |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Any thoughts? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I have no problem with unstable keywords while prefix is maintaining |
| 24 |
its own tree. Ultimately the goal is to merge prefix in as a standard |
| 25 |
portage feature right? It is simply too much effort to provide a |
| 26 |
"stable" tree type contract to people while there is this much |
| 27 |
divergence occurring. Having to keep two ebuilds maintained for each |
| 28 |
of the packages would effectively halve the amount of time that you |
| 29 |
have for other tasks. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I wouldn't mine helping sync or expand the prefix tree btw, as I am |
| 32 |
already doing a bit of it myself when I find a package that I want in |
| 33 |
my prefix which isn't there, or isn't keyworded as such. If you do |
| 34 |
want to do some stabilisation I may be able to help with that for |
| 35 |
x86-macos (10.5). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Peter |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list |
Archives