| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:27:27AM -0400 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is why I think separate trees is the way to go. If you're already |
| 3 |
> having to test for *every* ebuild, why make it more complex by having |
| 4 |
> TONS of "stable" ebuilds in the same tree. With a separate tree, one |
| 5 |
> can simply test against the packages IN THAT TREE AND NO OTHER and get |
| 6 |
> an accurate test of what the user would see. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
With a separate profile, one can simply test against the packages IN THAT |
| 9 |
PROFILE AND NO OTHER and get an accurate test of what the user would see. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> arch is base... ~arch is updates... This is simple. For people that |
| 12 |
> want all the updates, they set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~arch. For people |
| 13 |
> that want to verify updates, they simply re-KEYWORD the package once |
| 14 |
> they've approved it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This would require us to dramatically revamp the process used to issue |
| 17 |
GLSAs. For "mainstream" users, we'd have to tell them to look for arch |
| 18 |
ebuilds. For "stable" users, we'd have to tell them to look for ~arch |
| 19 |
ebuilds. Mass confusion ensues. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
--kurt |
Archives