Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: profiles/arches.desc - improve repoman flexibility (with other benefits)

[M. J. Everitt]

On 27/03/17 11:10, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>
>> 3] Meaning of the three values "stable", "testing", "unstable" for
>> repoman
>>
>> * stable: When a profile of arch is tested, then repoman checks
>> consistency for
>> "arch" and for "~arch" separately.
>> Which profiles of the arch are tested is still controlled by
>> profiles.desc (and
>> -d / -e switches).
>> This is the current behaviour and should be the default if nothing is
>> specified
>> for an arch.
>>
>> * testing: When a profile of arch is tested, then repoman treats
>> "arch" as
>> "~arch", and tests consistency only for "~arch".
>> Which profiles of the arch are tested is still controlled by
>> profiles.desc (and
>> -d / -e switches).
>> A new switch for repoman may be provided to temporarily upgrade an
>> arch from
>> "testing" to "stable" (for arch team work).
>>
>> * unstable: When a profile of arch is tested, then repoman treats
>> "arch" as an
>> error and aborts. Consistency is only tested for "~arch".
>> Which profiles of the arch are tested is still controlled by
>> profiles.desc (and
>> -d / -e switches).
> This sounds more like "testing" to me - architecture is only meant to
> have "testing" keywords, which is what I tend to call ~arch because
> it's in testing to become "stable" in ~30days or so, instead of calling
> it "unstable" (which feels appropriate only for a package that doesn't
> carry any stable keywords in older versions either).
> While taken from another perspective, the meaning for "testing" as in
> this proposal makes sense too - treat all as "testing" keywords.
> This goes back to the overloaded terminology concerns that have been
> echoed by others as well.
> But I don't have any good suggestions for alternatives either right
> now. stable/no_stable_check/testing_only? shrug.
>
>
'unstable' should surely be applied to masked packages, no? Everything
not-stable and not-unstable becomes therefore 'testing' ...