| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Sorry, to be clear the conclusion I was hoping to draw is that one has 2 |
| 5 |
> > repos instead of 1. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > 1) Rolling. |
| 8 |
> > 2) Stable. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Rolling is typical ~arch Gentoo. People in rolling can do whatever they |
| 11 |
> > want; they can't affect stable at all. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Stable is an entirely separate repo, a fork, where CPVs are pulled from |
| 14 |
> > Rolling into Stable. If Stable wants to keep a gnarly old version of some |
| 15 |
> > package around; great! But the rolling people don't have to care. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This seems like it would be fairly painful to maintain. You'd need to |
| 19 |
> constantly pull in new packages, and prune out old ones. It would |
| 20 |
> duplicate many of the functions maintainers already do. I doubt |
| 21 |
> anybody would go to the trouble to make this happen. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Long time ago releng team did something similar. We defined stable as |
| 25 |
tested distribution that has all security updates merged back. From my |
| 26 |
experience what made that efforts very tedious was that there were packages |
| 27 |
that do not specify minimum required versions for dependencies. Thus we had |
| 28 |
to duplicate maintainer's work and check lot's of dependencies again. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Also when we speak about stable tree we first should define what stability |
| 31 |
are we talking about? What do we guarantee? ABI/API compatibility or that |
| 32 |
it is expected "just work" (whatever this means)? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Peter. |
Archives