| 1 |
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 20:01, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Take any and all ebuilds which are marked as stable for a particular |
| 3 |
> > arch, remove any ~arch keywords, and split it to a gentoo-$version |
| 4 |
> > module. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Agreed, though I don't see a real need to remove ~arch ebuilds. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
There's no need, at all. I was simply suggesting it, since if we don't |
| 9 |
seem them "stable" in the tree, why should they be in a stable tree? |
| 10 |
*grin* |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > Since it is a separate module, the ebuilds will always be |
| 13 |
> > there. Since it was taken from the release snapshot for each arch, |
| 14 |
> > it'll also match what is done on the release media, making bug hunting |
| 15 |
> > even easier. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> [side note] the releases of the tree are not tied to the releases of our |
| 18 |
> liveCD/package sets.[/side note] |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This I don't understand at all. Why maintain 2 separate release cycles? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> > Here, we're using the SYNC variable to control the tree, rather than a |
| 23 |
> > profile. This means we can support multiple profiles on the same tree |
| 24 |
> > easily, and also keeps ebuilds around for as long as we keep the tree |
| 25 |
> > around. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> One think that I think *everyone* agrees on is that any stable tree needs |
| 28 |
> to be regularly updated with security fixes. With this in mind, I'm |
| 29 |
> concerned with trying to maintain multiple separate SYNC modules. We'd |
| 30 |
> have to upgrade each one with every GLSA, thus doubling or tripling the |
| 31 |
> amount of CVS work needed each time. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So the idea is to create exactly *one* stable tree? How is this any |
| 34 |
different than just doing better with our current tree? Honestly, from |
| 35 |
what I've heard from our users, they want package stability (as in |
| 36 |
freeze) much more than anything else. This is *exactly* why I recommend |
| 37 |
tying the "stable" trees with the releases. I'm not sure I can |
| 38 |
understand how doing anything else really gives us anything other than |
| 39 |
adding more workload for the simple fact of adding workload. Having a |
| 40 |
"stable" tree that still moves, and only providing a single "stable" |
| 41 |
tree doesn't seem to be an improvement from what we have at all. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 45 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
| 46 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives