1 |
On Sat, 2008-04-19 at 23:11 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> On 19-04-2008 16:07:19 -0500, matt hull wrote: |
3 |
> >> Due to numerous occasions of b0rkerage in the bootstrap snapshots, |
4 |
> >> bootstrapping has failed. A selection of issues that come up: |
5 |
> >> - XXXX/YYYYY-p.q is the latest version in the snapshot, but this version |
6 |
> >> has been removed, and its distfiles have become unavailable (e.g. |
7 |
> >> rsync-3.0.0_pre2) |
8 |
> >> - XXXX/YYYYY-p.q was added in the snapshot, but breaks several packages |
9 |
> >> (e.g. gcc-4.3.0) |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > perhaps we need to keep older versions for bootstrap ? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I don't think that's a problem. In general the highest version in the |
14 |
> tree is used at the moment due to our single keywordness. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> >> To aid the pre-sync stage, I am considering to switch to usign stable |
17 |
> >> keywords for the system packages *only*. That is, the bootstrap process |
18 |
> >> is done with stable keywords, all other packages remain ~arch and hence |
19 |
> >> a user has to add ~arch to ACCEPT_KEYWORDS after bootstrapping finishes. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > i would think it would be better to use stable and testing like normal. i |
22 |
> > would like to try to keep stable here. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> That's very unlikely to happen from my point of view. For that we |
25 |
> really need a bunch of devs that are going to maintain the stable |
26 |
> keywords like the arch teams currently do for gentoo-x86. |
27 |
|
28 |
As we have approximately less than 1 dev per arch, IMO for the bootstrap |
29 |
_only_ it could be possible to have "stable and testing like normal", |
30 |
but we might need to reduce the definition of "normal" (drop stablereq |
31 |
bugs, ...), but then we cannot call it "normal" any more ;) |
32 |
|
33 |
/haubi/ |
34 |
-- |
35 |
Michael Haubenwallner |
36 |
Gentoo on a different level |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list |