| 1 |
tberman was discussing this sort of change some time ago. Might be helpful if |
| 2 |
he could let us know the status of this ;-) |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Stu |
| 5 |
-- |
| 6 |
On Monday 06 October 2003 10:47 pm, Ian Leitch wrote: |
| 7 |
> Hi everyone, |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'm sure this HAS to have been discussed before, and if it has, it was |
| 10 |
> before my time. I'd like to hear peoples opinions and what the |
| 11 |
> conclusion was from earlier discussions. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Just to make everything clear, I will outline exactly what I have in |
| 14 |
> mind. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> In my view, the portage tree would benefit from having the following: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> STABLE arch: |
| 19 |
> Obvious realy, stable packages only. Considered a stable ebuild and |
| 20 |
> stable software. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> PRESTABLE (perhaps called Testing?) ~arch: |
| 23 |
> Only software considered stable but whos ebuild is considered unstable |
| 24 |
> or just badly written. OpenOffice is a good example: 1.1 is a stable |
| 25 |
> release but the ebuild contains warnings about the ebuild itself being |
| 26 |
> alpha. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> UNSTABLE >arch (or some other symbol): |
| 29 |
> Software stability takes precedence over ebuild stability here, eg a |
| 30 |
> package whos ebuild was very small and perfectly writen but the software |
| 31 |
> itself was considered unstable would be marked unstable and not |
| 32 |
> prestable. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Regards, |
| 36 |
> Ian. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> -- |
| 40 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Stuart Herbert stuart@g.o |
| 44 |
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 45 |
Beta packages for download http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/ |
| 46 |
Come and meet me in March 2004 http://www.phparch.com/cruise/ |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu |
| 49 |
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C |
| 50 |
-- |
Archives