Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chad Huneycutt <chadh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Cc: gentoo-core@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Release/Stable/Dev
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:43:29
Message-Id: 1037810564.13315.12.camel@rebo
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Release/Stable/Dev by Toby Dickenson
1 On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 11:33, Toby Dickenson wrote:
2 > On Wednesday 20 November 2002 4:21 pm, Chad Huneycutt wrote:
3 >
4 > > Use profiles for this. The process would go something like this:
5 > >
6 > > 1. Install Gentoo on your dev box
7 > > 2. Tweak until the stability is where you want it (i.e., find stable
8 > > versions of software, make patches -- and submit them to bugzilla, and
9 > > place any outside ebuilds in /usr/local/portage or whatever and set
10 > > PORTAGE_OVERLAY -- or whatever the var is)
11 > > 3. Once you have the packages from portage like you want them, create a
12 > > new profile:
13 > > # cd /usr/portage/profiles
14 > > # cp -r your_current_profile my_stable_profile
15 > > # mv my_stable_profile /usr/local/portage/profiles
16 > > # rm /etc/make.profile
17 > > # ln -s /usr/local/portage/profiles/my_stable_profile /etc/make.profile
18 > > # cd /usr/local/portage/profiles/my_stable_profile
19 > > # echo "all_my_package-revisions" > packages
20 > >
21 > > The packages file is well commented, but basically you can use it to
22 > > "pin" the versions of all your packages (or just the ones that matter).
23 > > 4. Now you should be able to use that profile directory as
24 > > /etc/make.profile on all your systems.
25 >
26 > Im sure that wouldnt work. Your profile would refer to your chosen version,
27 > but that doesnt help when the ebuild (and other files) for that version is
28 > removed from portage.
29 >
30 > I agree with you that this *should* work. That means that old revisions would
31 > never be removed from portage.
32 >
33 > But they are, so it doesnt :-(
34
35 That is a totally different problem, though, which could easily be
36 remedied on the user side. I agree that it is a problem, though. I
37 offered a scheme for automating ebuild removal of the portage tree some
38 time back on -core, but it fell on mostly deaf ears. I personally
39 almost never remove old ebuilds unless they are ancient or broken. We
40 are certainly aware of this issue, though; the alternative arch devs get
41 bitten all the time because someone will update an ebuild, mask it on
42 alternative arches, and then delete the old ebuild, thus leaving no
43 unmasked versions for the alt arch.
44
45 --
46 Chad Huneycutt
47 chadh@g.o
48
49
50 --
51 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list