1 |
Jeroen Roovers posted on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:36:25 +0100 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
[Duncan wrote...] |
4 |
|
5 |
>> However, Gentoo policy has always been that even ~arch is only |
6 |
>> upstream- stable packages, the ~arch keyword denoting Gentoo package |
7 |
>> testing (basically, the ebuild script and dependencies), /not/ upstream |
8 |
>> testing. In with certain exceptions, in particular for packages where |
9 |
>> Gentoo itself is upstream, if it's not a package that could at least in |
10 |
>> theory be Gentoo- stable if no bugs appear during the 30-day standard |
11 |
>> stabilizing period, it's not supposed to be ~arch keyworded either. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> This doesn't even make sense. |
14 |
|
15 |
Well, then, perhaps the developer handbook and devmanual versions |
16 |
make sense to you: |
17 |
|
18 |
Developer Handbook: |
19 |
|
20 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap4 |
21 |
|
22 |
1.d QA policy, under ~ARCH in KEYWORDS |
23 |
|
24 |
""""" |
25 |
There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for ebuilds. |
26 |
The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires testing. The use of |
27 |
package.mask denotes that the application or library itself is deemed |
28 |
unstable. For example, if gimp-1.2.0 is the stable release from Gimp |
29 |
developers, and a new bug fix release is available as 1.2.1, then a |
30 |
developer should mark the ebuild as ~arch for testing in portage because |
31 |
the release is deemed to be stable. In another example, if Gimp decides to |
32 |
release an unstable/development series marked as 1.3.0, then these ebuilds |
33 |
should be put in package.mask because the software itself is of |
34 |
development quality and is not recommended by the developers for |
35 |
distribution. |
36 |
""""" |
37 |
|
38 |
Devmanual: |
39 |
|
40 |
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html |
41 |
|
42 |
""""" |
43 |
The different levels of keyword are: |
44 |
|
45 |
arch (x86, ppc-macos) |
46 |
Both the package version and the ebuild are widely tested, known to |
47 |
work and not have any serious issues on the indicated platform. |
48 |
~arch (~x86, ~ppc-macos) |
49 |
The package version and the ebuild are believed to work and do not |
50 |
have any known serious bugs, but more testing is required before the |
51 |
package version is considered suitable for arch. |
52 |
""""" |
53 |
|
54 |
As I said, ~arch keywords denote Gentoo package testing, /not/ upstream |
55 |
testing. ~arch should be stable upstream, or it belongs in package.mask, |
56 |
not ~arch. (In practice, there are exceptions, the biggest one being |
57 |
where Gentoo's the upstream, such as with portage itself. The reasoning |
58 |
as I understand it is that upstream needs testing to stabilize, and since |
59 |
Gentoo's it's own upstream in these cases...) |
60 |
|
61 |
So there is indeed /some/ developer responsibility for maintaining a |
62 |
reasonably stable system, even for ~arch. If it's known-broken or |
63 |
upstream is deliberately labeling it beta and saying it's not ready |
64 |
for general use, it doesn't belong in ~arch either, but rather in |
65 |
package.mask. |
66 |
|
67 |
So here's your original statement to which I took issue: |
68 |
|
69 |
>>> I didn't push it on all users. Maybe ~arch users, but they get to keep |
70 |
>>> the pieces when they break their systems, if I recall correctly. |
71 |
|
72 |
My reply: |
73 |
|
74 |
>> To some extent, yes[, however, Gentoo policy, the top quote above] |
75 |
|
76 |
To which you say: |
77 |
|
78 |
> No, to the full extent. |
79 |
|
80 |
The point that I'm making is that the clear Gentoo policy as outlined |
81 |
in the quotes above, is that if it's known broken, upstream beta clearly |
82 |
not intended for general usage yet, or hasn't been tested by the committing |
83 |
dev, it's that dev's responsibility. Thus, the "to some extent" on the |
84 |
"~arch users get to keep the pieces" bit. It's known to be less well |
85 |
tested and in fact is ~arch for the /purpose/ of getting that testing, |
86 |
but if there are known serious issues, or if upstream itself doesn't |
87 |
call it ready for general distribution, in general, it shouldn't be in |
88 |
~arch at all, but in package.mask. |
89 |
|
90 |
That's the clearly stated policy, whether it "makes sense" to you or not. |
91 |
|
92 |
-- |
93 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
94 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
95 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |