| 1 |
On Monday 02 February 2004 17:17, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> Please take a moment to review the GLEP and offer any feedback or ask any |
| 3 |
> questions. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
If we're introducing stable keywords, why do we need a cvs branch? So far |
| 6 |
keywords have been used to identify logical trees and people have been |
| 7 |
talking about changing the cvs/rsync setup somehow to allow users to fetch a |
| 8 |
tree with just the keywords they want. Ebuild revision numbers allow |
| 9 |
different ebuilds for different keywords/trees for the same package version. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
A real separate cvs branch seems like a lot of extra work; most updates going |
| 12 |
into the stable branch will probably also go into the main tree. What am I |
| 13 |
missing? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
--- |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
About keyword naming, I agree with Stuart's note elsewhere in the thread that |
| 18 |
'stable' is misleading. I also want to ask how the transition of |
| 19 |
arch-->~stable:arch-->stable:arch is different from the existing transition |
| 20 |
of ~arch-->arch. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If it isn't different and it's just a matter of the package being more and |
| 23 |
more tested and used and proven without known (unfixed) bugs/vulnerabilites, |
| 24 |
I don't think it's appropriate to create keywords by adding several modifiers |
| 25 |
to an arch's name (~ and stable). We're not really combining the properties |
| 26 |
of ~ and 'stable', and might as well assign stability levels with keywords |
| 27 |
like 0:x86 for ~x86, ..., 3:x86 for stable:x86. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Or, what is the difference? The GLEP doesn't actually explain the meaning of |
| 30 |
'stable' marking - the uncertainty Stuart refers to. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
One possible distinction is: stable status is given to a package that is |
| 33 |
widely enough used and respected in the big bad world and has no known bugs, |
| 34 |
as opposed to a package that's in portage for a month and has no bugs but |
| 35 |
hasn't actually seen much use or been a target for attempted attacks. The |
| 36 |
latter would never move beyond a regular arch keyword. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Some ebuilds might perhaps never be considered for the stable tree at all |
| 39 |
because the target audience demonstrably isn't interested in them (based also |
| 40 |
on actual usage data after the tree is up). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Both these are an RFC more than a suggestion; I want to understand the GLEP's |
| 43 |
idea, not propose an alternative of my own. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Dan Armak |
| 47 |
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) |
| 48 |
Matan, Israel |
| 49 |
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key |
| 50 |
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 |
Archives