Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GLEP 19 -- Gentoo Stable Portage Tree

[Paul de Vrieze]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 03 February 2004 00:22, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>
> First off, it's great that someone's finally done something about
> this. People have been talking about stable / unstable trees since
> before I first joined the project, with nothing actually done to
> implement it.
>
> The main suggestion I have is to drop the word 'stable'.  It's an
> imprecise term that means different things to different people.  For
> example, should an ebuild be marked stable because it works, or
> because the package itself works?  It doesn't matter what the official
> policy is - you'll always have a gray area with the word 'stable'.
>
> If you want an 'enterprise'-grade tree, why not call it precisely
> that? ;-) Heh - then we can get a 'carrier'-grade tree too (yes, they
> really do call it that ;-) ;-)
>
> How are you going to manage whether something gets into your
> enterprise tree or not?  I spent part of Saturday night fixing up
> mod_php ebuilds which someone had marked stable on an arch that was
> missing dependencies.  It's just one example of the trouble we have
> getting people to use repoman.  With the current tree - and
> expectations - these things don't matter that much. But for
> 'enterprise' level quality and higher ...

I think indeed enterprise makes more sense. Also part of the stability is 
just that the tree doesn't change. Frozen would be another candidate 
that says less about the quality of the ebuilds.

Paul

- -- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@g.o
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAH3iDbKx5DBjWFdsRAqToAKCgxGPWTvY759Zk3+h9MyIZqD5SjACgtEJk
/SMQOk1tkmM2vjd3i/r/Zkw=
=B3Ru
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list