Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pieter Van den Abeele <pvdabeel@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 14:09:43
1 Begin forgot to cc gentoo-dev message:
3 On Sunday, Dec 15, 2002, at 13:56 Europe/Brussels, Rainer Groesslinger
4 wrote:
6 > For example Maik "blizzy" Schreiber told me about
7 > which is something like a "voting
8 > system" but almost nobody is using it (for example mozilla 1.2.1 only
9 > has
10 > one vote although many thousand people are using it - with success)
11 > and if
12 > you take a look at the ebuild you see that every mozilla ebuild with
13 > version
14 > 1.2.1 has the keyword ~x86 - so stable users don't get it although
15 > there's
16 > no reason for calling Mozilla 1.2.1 "unstable"...
18 AFAIK gentoo-stable currently is in the process of being integrated
19 into (and into bugzilla?). is
20 not official. It is only open to public for testing and for comments
21 (from mostly gentoo devs, maybe some users). It would probably be a bit
22 too soon to have many thousands of people use a system that is still
23 under heavy development. You should ask maik about this in person,
24 cause I don't know everything about its current state. But I do know it
25 will be officially announced on if it is ready for
26 everyone.
28 > In my opinion should be a
29 > more-or-less
30 > official voting system for the packages or gentoo stable will end like
31 > debian stable and I don't think Gentoo wants to go *that* stable :)
33 gentoo-stable was needed for the following reason: we needed a
34 mechanism to be able to track which (unstable) ebuilds users have
35 installed/tested and run great (or crashed their system). (Right now
36 lot of devs mark an ebuild with ~x86 ~ppc ~alpha ~sparc ~mips... and
37 never receive input from users to inform them if an ebuild works great
38 or doesn't. That's why gentoo-stable is being created.) but like I
39 said, it still is in the development/testing/open for comments stage
40 and is probably not production ready ( should ask maik)
42 > There are just not enough users and feedback pushing unstable packages
43 > to
44 > stable from what I see...
46 it's not in production stage yet so there's no need to announce this
47 officially to everyone yet. We want user input, but I can imagine Maik
48 doesn't want a few thousand people reporting everything. We don't want
49 to slashdot maik's server. (That doesn't mean that you can't have a
50 look at it and send your comments to this list or even to maik if you
51 find a bug). Again: ask maik about the development status, but I think
52 it's not production ready yet and in testing stage.
54 > There was/is talk about package.mask being removed in the future -
55 > good idea
56 > but I think it should look like this
57 >
58 > stable: KDE 3.0.5
59 > unstable: KDE3.1RC5
60 >
61 > stable: Mozilla 1.2.1
62 > unstable: Mozilla 1.3a
63 >
64 > and so on...In short: Gentoo stable should be as close as possible to
65 > what
66 > the developers of the various applications call "stable" - why not
67 > believe
68 > them ? ;p
70 It's not really the app only that should be called 'stable' before it
71 can appear as stable in gentoo. If the ebuild is broken, or does some
72 weird stuff (or just needs to be tested) a stable app can be called
73 unstable. Gentoo is a metadistribution, that means that instead of
74 sending users applications in binary form we give users executable
75 (readable) instructions to build the Gentoo binaries themselves. These
76 instructions can be called unstable if they are only recently
77 introduced into portage and need to be tested first. but otherwise the
78 stable/unstable thing does follow what the developers call their
79 application (unless we think what they say is incorrect (happens when
80 users report that the application breaks)
82 > Currently the package.mask carries packages which have a right to be
83 > called
84 > unstable, e.g. XFree 4.2.99 and so on...
85 > But the stable/unstable situation in some ebuilds is a bit confusing
86 > and
87 > leading in the wrong direction if continued like this ?
89 Can you give an example of these ebuilds?
91 I know there are some apps which are called unstable by their
92 developer, and stable by us. But this happens only after a long period
93 of testing/running the app.
95 > Of course every distribution needs to test individual things, make some
96 > changes here and there...And to avoid a bad stable tree I highly
97 > suggest
98 > using blizzy's system...
100 Maik will be glad to hear that. But keep in mind that the system is
101 probably only up for testing and not yet in production.
103 > Just my opinion about current stable/unstable things...
104 > Rainer
106 Pieter
108 --
109 Pieter Van den Abeele
110 pvdabeel@g.o - pvdabeel@××××××.be
113 --
114 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ? Maik Schreiber <blizzy@g.o>