| 1 |
On Saturday 29 April 2006 19:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jan Kundrát wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Ryan Phillips wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Stable and unstable keywords are a hack on top of a version control |
| 5 |
> >> system. We wouldn't have them if gentoo used an SCM that supports |
| 6 |
> >> true branches. There would be no need. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Umm, I'm not an ebuild dev, but how would users mix stable and |
| 9 |
> > unstable packages in such a case? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> They would probably have to check out two trees. But the two trees |
| 12 |
> combined would likely be the same size as the single tree now, since a |
| 13 |
> lot of packages have at least two ebuilds available, one ~arch and one |
| 14 |
> stable. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The real showstopper in my mind is that having a single ~arch and a |
| 17 |
> single stable tree means you can't selectively stable things on |
| 18 |
> different architectures at different times. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Agreed, the main advantage of a proper vcs would be that the ancestry |
| 21 |
between different ebuild versions would be visible. This would make it |
| 22 |
even possible to merge back working changes from a testing version to a |
| 23 |
stable version without gambling that it will work. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Paul |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 29 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 30 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 31 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives