Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask

Daniel Robbins wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 07:14:56PM +0200, Achim Gottinger wrote:
>
> > Here is an alternative to the package.mask concept. We can start tagging
> > packages in the cvs tree.  So by default you whould checkout the latest rc
> > instead of the in development versions. If you want to add a development
> > version to your system you can checkout manually.  Instead of using the
> > gentoo version number for tagging we can use "stable" for all packages not in
> > development.  This should be sufficient for the beginning, but in the future
> > I think we need to use the version numbers.  The past shows that it is a nice
> > idea to have an allways up to date system, but some updates can create lots
> > of unexpectable bugs. To avoid messing up all our users system, we can
> > instead maintain our different releases separate and make only security fixes
> > to them. So you can allways have a secure rc4,rc5 1.0 1.1 ....
>
> I'm not a big fan of cvs, so I'd rather avoid using cvs to handle different
> versions of Gentoo, except as a last resort.  In the future, I think we'll
> probably have a stable and development branch of Gentoo Linux.  But I only want
> to have a maximum of two (maybe three if we are working on a new stable
> release) active, secure branches of Gentoo Linux at any time.  If possible, I
> think we should look for ways to avoid dividing Gentoo Linux using cvs because
> generally this ends up splitting the development team into two camps, or
> doubling the work of the active developers such as yourself, because then we
> are effectively supporting two separate versions of Gentoo Linux at the same
> time.
>
> Soon, we'll have all the features in Portage to ensure that the *right*
> versions of packages get installed (not just the most recent that satisifies
> the dependency).  If we then focus on ensuring that all the various ebuilds on
> CVS will compile under any version of Gentoo Linux, then I don't think we have
> a problem anymore.

And this is less work that maintaining different branches? 
I think this is MI-3 Odysee-2100 to jupiter. :-)


 We can have certain expectations as to ebuild compatibility
> -- for example, we can make a rule that any Gentoo Linux 1.x ebuild should be
> able to compile on any other Gentoo Linux 1.x system (whether "stable" or
> "current").  If an ebuild doesn't meet this rule, then this particular version
> should be blocked out of the appropriate packages files, i.e.
> <=sys-apps/bash-2.05 would block out sys-apps/bash-2.06 or later.

does this work

!sys-apps/bash-2.04

if I only want to use bash-2.04 and no other version?
You know, never touch a running system. :-)

achim~

>
> But until we reach version 1.0, we shouldn't even be thinking about creating a
> "stable" or "unstable" branch of Gentoo Linux.... everything on cvs is
> "unstable" (technically) at this point.  Or, as the BSD people prefer calling
> it -- "current".
>
> --
> Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@g.o>
> President/CEO                                   http://www.gentoo.org
> Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@g.o
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev