| 1 |
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 15:19, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I think you may be confusing the snapshot we make for GRP packages |
| 4 |
> with the proposed stable tree. There are no plans to offer GRP |
| 5 |
> packages of the stable tree. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Not to say we can't/won't do it, but it's not included as part of this |
| 8 |
> GLEP. Again, if the QA folks want to leverage this tree and provide |
| 9 |
> additional QA efforts around it, that's great. That's not the primary |
| 10 |
> target of this GLEP, however. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I think that such a fixed tree is particularly suited for binary packages. It |
| 13 |
will not have some of the problems that normal GRP has. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
On the QA point, I believe that there is not much point into making a fixed |
| 16 |
try without looking at QA. About the keywords issue, I expect ebuild |
| 17 |
maintainers to put an effort into actually trying to get one ebuild version |
| 18 |
for all archs that support the package. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
For this reason I prefer to have a separate (temporary) staging area where one |
| 21 |
can copy candidate ebuilds and their auxiliary files to. This area can then |
| 22 |
be reviewed by the arch people to judge the stability. At some point then the |
| 23 |
ebuilds would be put into a fixed tree. This idea actually will not use |
| 24 |
branching (as cvs does not support copying files) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Paul |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 30 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 31 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 32 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives