| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:17:28PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06.07.2011 21:55, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > All, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > from my previous discussion, I am about to put a new virtual in the |
| 6 |
> > tree. Do I need to use the same ~arch/30 day wait/stabilize cycle I |
| 7 |
> > would normally use even though the default package the virtual will |
| 8 |
> > bring in is stable everywhere? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I'm thinking I can take the virtual straight to stable in this situation,, |
| 11 |
> > but I want to be sure. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Nothing stable should be using the virtual at the time of commit so |
| 15 |
> what's the benefit of going stable fast? Repoman should also be |
| 16 |
> preventing commits straight to stable. I would stable the virtual at the |
| 17 |
> same time as someone stable starts to use it (which probably means the |
| 18 |
> 30 day period). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Actually we could use it faster than that. I want to add a |
| 21 |
virtual/service-manager (see http://bugs.gentoo.org/373843) for |
| 22 |
sys-apps/openrc and sys-apps/systemd then add it to the system set, so |
| 23 |
it would be used immediately everywhere. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That will also make it possible for folks using systemd to remove |
| 26 |
openrc from their systems if they want to do so, which they |
| 27 |
can't right now because baselayout has a PDEPEND on openrc. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
William |
Archives