| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Firstly: I was aware of packages.gentoo.org - but only really |
| 4 |
discovered it in the week - THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Not sure whether this is the best place for my request, so if not, |
| 7 |
please feel free to bat me in the right direction. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/net-misc/asterisk (example) refers. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I'm the (proxy) maintainer. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The above URL merely states: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It seems that version 18.2.0 is available upstream, while the latest |
| 16 |
version in the Gentoo tree is 16.15.1. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This is correct. Just looking a little down, it's noted there are two |
| 19 |
versions currently in tree: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
*16.15.1-r2 |
| 22 |
<https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/net-misc/asterisk/asterisk-16.15.1-r2.ebuild>* : 0 |
| 23 |
*13.38.1-r2 |
| 24 |
<https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/net-misc/asterisk/asterisk-13.38.1-r2.ebuild>* : 0 |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
What's not indicated, there are subslots (13 and 16 respectively). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
eshowkw (app-portage/gentoolkit) shows: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Keywords for net-misc/asterisk: |
| 31 |
| | u | |
| 32 |
| a a p s a r | n | |
| 33 |
| m r h p p s l i i m m | e u s | r |
| 34 |
| d a m p p c a x 3 p a s 6 i | a s l | e |
| 35 |
| 6 r 6 p p 6 r 8 9 h 6 c 8 p | p e o | p |
| 36 |
| 4 m 4 a c 4 c 6 0 a 4 v k s | i d t | o |
| 37 |
--------------+-----------------------------+----------+------- |
| 38 |
13.38.1-r2 | + ~ ~ o ~ ~ o + o o o o o o | 7 o 0/13 | gentoo |
| 39 |
--------------+-----------------------------+----------+------- |
| 40 |
[I]16.15.1-r2 | ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ o o o o o o | 7 o 0/16 | gentoo |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Which is currently as intended (yea, I'm behind the times - stable and |
| 43 |
working in this case over bleeding edge - and nobody other than me is |
| 44 |
yet pushing me to stable /16, although I have a bug request to package |
| 45 |
18 which I intend to start work on today hopefully since I'm working on |
| 46 |
asterisk stuff for business purposes today anyway). |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
13 is security only release now, and 16 and 18 are the primary branches |
| 49 |
where 16 is more intended as stable and more fluctuations on 18 still |
| 50 |
(which precludes me from using it for our company just yet). |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Point being, it would be great if packages.gentoo.org could indicate |
| 53 |
that in above cases as follows: |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
18.2.0 is available, which is correct, and desired, but if it could also |
| 56 |
indicate that for the 16 branch there is currently a version of 16.16.0 |
| 57 |
available, and for 13 things are up to date. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Would be useful too to indicate that certain branches (eg, 17 in the |
| 60 |
asterisk case will not be packaged due to being primarily development |
| 61 |
branches, or at the very least, will not be considered for stabling) |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
In other words, guessing I'm looking for some form of "branched |
| 64 |
versions" support here. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
I know security already has some work around subslots as it was the sec |
| 67 |
team that requested me to add subslots to net-misc/asterisk. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
And yes ... looks like repology does have a few issues around branches |
| 70 |
too: https://repology.org/project/asterisk/cves?version=13.38.1 |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
So I would completely understand if it's not possible to deal with |
| 73 |
this. As per |
| 74 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/b793f4da5a5b5e20a063ea431500a820 |
| 75 |
there are certain configs that can go into |
| 76 |
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/sites/soko-metadata.git/ - however, not being |
| 77 |
a core developer, I don't have (nor am I requesting) access here. May I |
| 78 |
suggest that in-package metadata (ie, metadata.xml, or even inside the |
| 79 |
ebuilds) might be a better location for some of this configuration if |
| 80 |
possible, and if it makes sense? For me the advantage is that as a PM I |
| 81 |
can submit the required information via PR. |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
A description of the branch structure may be more suitable here anyway, |
| 84 |
because that way other tools can leverage it too? |
| 85 |
|
| 86 |
Then again, perhaps just looking at the subslots as already available is |
| 87 |
good enough, in the case of the packages I work on this would indeed be |
| 88 |
adequate, but it may not be for other packages. |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
Looking at repology.org itself, I'm not sure my request is trivial, and |
| 91 |
I'm not going to ask tons of effort be put into this, but perhaps an |
| 92 |
interesting challenge for someone at some point. |
| 93 |
|
| 94 |
Kind Regards, |
| 95 |
Jaco |
Archives