| 1 |
On 21-11-2007 08:49:12 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 15:57 -0600, matt hull wrote: |
| 3 |
> > i think we should use stable and testing in the current tree. no |
| 4 |
> > different from other hurds. after 30 days with no major bugs and |
| 5 |
> > tested mark the package as stable. as you said you dont have any |
| 6 |
> > time, so you could just leave it unstable till there is time |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> +1 |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Be aware that arch teams have a hard job doing stable markings, as the |
| 11 |
entire dep chain needs to be stable too. In other words, I for sure |
| 12 |
wouldn't put my time in it, so others would have to go this route. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > i would like to see this for system packages so a change doesnt break |
| 15 |
> > my system and force a reinstall. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> +2 |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Having at least system+svn stable would be really useful, especially for |
| 20 |
> bootstrapping. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I thought about this too, but what does it really add? The bootstrap |
| 23 |
snapshot is already a freezed snapshot that is supposed to work (that's |
| 24 |
why I can't just spin off a new snapshot, it needs to be in a stable |
| 25 |
state). More than often I have to release a new snapshot just because I |
| 26 |
fixed a quite show-stopping bug in the bootstrap image. A stable |
| 27 |
keyword doesn't help here, as we either have to immediately bump these |
| 28 |
packages into stable here, or the stable version causes trouble once an |
| 29 |
update is being done. The nice library moves that I had to do are a |
| 30 |
great example of this. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 35 |
Gentoo on a different level |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list |
Archives