Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:03:29
Message-Id: DC3IQR.1522355397V3JWJ5@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting by Brian Harring
1 On 17/9/2005 11:34:56, Brian Harring (ferringb@g.o) wrote:
2 > On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 11:28:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
3 > > The 30-day could be calculated from the $Header: of ebuilds that have
4 > > no UNSTABLE, or where it's empty.
5 >
6 > Doesn't work for N arches keywording, or ebuild dev doing minor
7 > syntax touch ups.
8
9 Good point. The minor touch-up issue could be resolved by setting
10 the string to the date the last issue was cleared instead of deleting
11 it:
12
13 UNSTABLE="2005/10/04"
14
15 but to handle N arches needs a different approach (the 'maint' keyword
16 idea also falls down here).
17
18
19 My favourite idea so far is mike's '?arch' on the understanding that
20 we have:
21
22 package.mask - 'alpha'
23 Not suitable for mainstream testing
24
25 ?arch - 'beta'
26 Works on maintainers systems, worth testing
27 Maintainer may not have tried it on arch.
28
29 ~arch - 'release candidate'
30 Maintainer & arch team happy that it's a good candidate for arch
31 30-day maturity phase, arch testing in progress
32
33 arch - 'released'
34 Arch team happy it's stable
35
36
37 In particular it's worth noting that marking ?arch is not restricted
38 the way marking ~arch is. Over time I expect the x86 arch team to
39 impose more rigour on the use of ~x86, so that it behaves similarly
40 to the other arches.
41
42 In general, it would make sense for people to have arch or ~arch in
43 make.conf, and use package.keywords to grab stuff from ?arch in a
44 controlled fashion.
45
46 --
47 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list