| 1 |
On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 21:51, Lisa Seelye wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 17:47, Ian Leitch wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi everyone, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I'm sure this HAS to have been discussed before, and if it has, it was |
| 6 |
> > before my time. I'd like to hear peoples opinions and what the |
| 7 |
> > conclusion was from earlier discussions. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Just to make everything clear, I will outline exactly what I have in |
| 10 |
> > mind. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > In my view, the portage tree would benefit from having the following: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> How? Why does this warrant a radical change to the system? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As I'm sure all devs know, ~arch is used for other things than just |
| 17 |
testing ebuilds. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
"The purpose of ~arch is for testing new packages added to Portage. This |
| 20 |
is not the equivalent of "testing" of "unstable" in other |
| 21 |
distributions." - Development Policy |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Making these changes would sort out this little problem/mess whatever |
| 24 |
you want to call it. I also think the extra unstable branch would take |
| 25 |
some weight off package.mask, which could then be reserved for the need |
| 26 |
to mask a package for temporary licensing issues etc.. without removing |
| 27 |
it from portage. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Stable would also gradulay become more stable. We can't match Debian for |
| 30 |
stability but we could have the best of both worlds: up-to-date, |
| 31 |
reasonably stable software. This must be pretty attractive to those |
| 32 |
using Gentoo on the server and more importantly, those thinking about |
| 33 |
it. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
Ian. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives