Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] stable keywords for bootstrapping

[matt hull]

On Apr 19, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:

> On 19-04-2008 16:07:19 -0500, matt hull wrote:
>>> Due to numerous occasions of b0rkerage in the bootstrap snapshots,
>>> bootstrapping has failed.  A selection of issues that come up:
>>> - XXXX/YYYYY-p.q is the latest version in the snapshot, but this
>>> version
>>>   has been removed, and its distfiles have become unavailable (e.g.
>>>   rsync-3.0.0_pre2)
>>> - XXXX/YYYYY-p.q was added in the snapshot, but breaks several
>>> packages
>>>   (e.g. gcc-4.3.0)
>>
>> perhaps we need to keep older versions for bootstrap ?
>
> I don't think that's a problem.  In general the highest version in the
> tree is used at the moment due to our single keywordness.
>
>>> To aid the pre-sync stage, I am considering to switch to usign
>>> stable
>>> keywords for the system packages *only*.  That is, the bootstrap
>>> process
>>> is done with stable keywords, all other packages remain ~arch and
>>> hence
>>> a user has to add ~arch to ACCEPT_KEYWORDS after bootstrapping
>>> finishes.
>>
>> i would think it would be better to use stable and testing like
>> normal.  i
>> would like to try to keep stable here.
>
> That's very unlikely to happen from my point of view.  For that we
> really need a bunch of devs that are going to maintain the stable
> keywords like the arch teams currently do for gentoo-x86.

i know it is diffucult.  i was thinking leave it as is ~, then if it  
is tested and no bugs after 30 days, mark it stable.  for the most  
part the tree will be ~ since we have a lack of dev's and testers.   
and for the boot strap, use stable only with bug fixes ?.  and leave  
the stable and boot strap packages in the tree.  instead of saying  
its too hard to do stable, lets just start really small.   i think  
stable package marking can help bootstrap and perhaps system packages.

matt
-- 
gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list