| 1 |
i think we should use stable and testing in the current tree. no |
| 2 |
different from other hurds. after 30 days with no major bugs and |
| 3 |
tested mark the package as stable. as you said you dont have any |
| 4 |
time, so you could just leave it unstable till there is time |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
i would like to see this for system packages so a change doesnt break |
| 7 |
my system and force a reinstall. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
matt |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On Nov 20, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Hi all, |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Per subject, let's have some discussion on stable keywords in Prefix. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I've always been against them, while others would like to have them. |
| 18 |
> I've basically been against them simply because I don't have time to |
| 19 |
> also maintain a stable tree/prefix/install. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> With the number of ebuilds in the tree increasing, I simply cannot |
| 22 |
> cope |
| 23 |
> with the volume any more as I used to do. This is mainly the case for |
| 24 |
> when I'm syncing the tree and approving each ebuild manually, merging |
| 25 |
> conflicts etc. I have no time to compile each package before I commit |
| 26 |
> it, but I try to check it at least unpacks. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Now I was wondering, maybe I could sync new ebuilds into ~arch, |
| 29 |
> while we |
| 30 |
> then make ebuilds arch when they appear to work on the works. Not |
| 31 |
> sure |
| 32 |
> how much this really "fixes", but just a random thought to reduce the |
| 33 |
> damage of semi-automagic syncing... |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Any thoughts? |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> -- |
| 38 |
> Fabian Groffen |
| 39 |
> Gentoo on a different level |
| 40 |
> -- |
| 41 |
> gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list |
Archives