1 |
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 11:46, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On Tuesday 07 October 2003 00:08, foser wrote: |
6 |
> > On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 00:08, Ian Leitch wrote: |
7 |
> > > As I'm sure all devs know, ~arch is used for other things than just |
8 |
> > > testing ebuilds. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > "The purpose of ~arch is for testing new packages added to Portage. This |
11 |
> > > is not the equivalent of "testing" of "unstable" in other |
12 |
> > > distributions." - Development Policy |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > Well then that is a violation of policy. Developers who do this should |
15 |
> > 'change their ways'. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Or change the policy |
18 |
|
19 |
Yeah, change the policy whenever it fits and nobody follows it, you can |
20 |
drop policies altogether if you start reasoning like that. |
21 |
|
22 |
> > I think package.mask is indeed not the best solution for development |
23 |
> > versions of packages, but neither do i think we should have an official |
24 |
> > 'unstable branch'. We have trouble enough to keep 'stable' stable and |
25 |
> > up-to-date as it is, no need to add another official burden to it. |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> |
28 |
> I like the idea of adding this keyword. There are packages whose ebuilds are |
29 |
> stable, and are reasonably stable, but still release candidates etc. |
30 |
> Currently the status of such packages is unclear. Sometimes they are put into |
31 |
> stable, sometimes they stay masked, and sometimes they are marked testing |
32 |
> (which they should start out with, as then they are new). |
33 |
|
34 |
No their status is quite clear according to policy. That practice proves |
35 |
otherwise in some cases is in my opinion a developers mistake. |
36 |
|
37 |
> Take for example the openoffice-1.1_rc? series. Those from rc3 onwards have |
38 |
> been almost equal to the final release (what source is concerned, the build |
39 |
> procedure was fixed). Current policy required them to be masked as they are |
40 |
> unstable releases, while in fact being quite stable. We had various requests |
41 |
> to remove them from the package.mask file. That, however, would be a |
42 |
> violation of policy. An extra keyword could help in that respect. |
43 |
|
44 |
No, the policy states that in the end it is up to the maintainer to |
45 |
assess the stability of a package, in case of openoffice which is well |
46 |
maintained in portage -afaik- i can see a developer deciding to mark it |
47 |
stable, but this shouldn't become common use. In general packages are |
48 |
maintained on a more distant basis, where the developer is not too |
49 |
involved with the package and can't judge it properly, so leaving the |
50 |
decision to the upstream developers (who to judge better?). Here policy |
51 |
should be strictly followed. No need for an extra keyword, yet another |
52 |
USE flag, etc. : just don't add it. |
53 |
|
54 |
> > The only reason i see for adding an extra layer is for 'big' stuff that |
55 |
> > needs serious testing : KDE/GNOME development series maybe, arch |
56 |
> > additions to the tree (amd64 anyone), introduction of new eclasses, etc. |
57 |
> > Those should be entered to the tree in some special protected |
58 |
> > environment first, where they get proper testing (maybe by a selected |
59 |
> > few) and then when reaching stability can be added to the tree with |
60 |
> > relative ease (not one developer throwing in his local tree one night at |
61 |
> > once). |
62 |
> I think that is another discussion although I agree with it. |
63 |
|
64 |
I don't think so, i think that is exactly what this is about. My point |
65 |
is really that development releases shouldn't be in portage, but that we |
66 |
do need a way to test them to some extent to adapt to upcoming stable |
67 |
releases. As soon as we add them to portage they become a |
68 |
responsibility. Something we can't have, since the package just isn't |
69 |
officially stable. I see this in a bit broader perspective here than |
70 |
just development releases. |
71 |
|
72 |
Like people asking why the development releases of GNOME enter the tree |
73 |
so late in the development process. Well, it might be fairly stable and |
74 |
usable to the general home user, but there are still known bugs and |
75 |
things to work out. I just can't guarantee a safe,problem free upgrade |
76 |
for say a small company running GNOME desktops who rely on stability. |
77 |
|
78 |
You can see the same already with package.mask, which was meant as a way |
79 |
to mask packages not working/being worked on. Yet users install these |
80 |
packages at will as if they were normal packages (only slightly annoyed |
81 |
by the fact that it takes some extra effort). Yes we need the testing, |
82 |
but no, users shouldn't install those without knowing what they do |
83 |
(which in my opinion is what happens most of the time). Makes me think |
84 |
of the libiconv bugs we get every now and then, it shouldn't be used, |
85 |
but users install it anyway and are left with the pieces. I don't think |
86 |
most of the users ever read the p.mask comments why something is masked. |
87 |
|
88 |
- foser |
89 |
|
90 |
|
91 |
-- |
92 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |