Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: GLEP 19 -- Gentoo Stable Portage Tree

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 05:04, Dan Armak wrote:
> A real separate cvs branch seems like a lot of extra work; most updates going
> into the stable branch will probably also go into the main tree. What am I
> missing?

I would think the better way would be a separate CVS branch in which
only specific ebuilds are added.  I tend to look at the "stable" tree as
a separate entity from the "regular" portage tree.

> About keyword naming, I agree with Stuart's note elsewhere in the thread that
> 'stable' is misleading. I also want to ask how the transition of
> arch-->~stable:arch-->stable:arch is different from the existing transition
> of ~arch-->arch.

I see no point in implementing *any* new keywords.  In fact, I could see
instead *removing* the ~arch from the "stable" branch and keeping arch
only.  After all, we should not be adding any "testing" ebuilds to the
stable tree.

I like the idea of having the stable tree be separate from the updates. 
In fact, I pretty much see this as a requirement.  The updates tree
*could* use ~arch, especially in the case of new exploits which require
new package versions from the upstream authors to resolve.

Also, can we drop the idea of "stable"?  It does not fit the audience
that it seems we're shooting for at all.  I would think "enterprise" is
much more fitting, as suggested by others before myself.

> If it isn't different and it's just a matter of the package being more and
> more tested and used and proven without known (unfixed) bugs/vulnerabilites,
> I don't think it's appropriate to create keywords by adding several modifiers
> to an arch's name (~ and stable). We're not really combining the properties
> of ~ and 'stable', and might as well assign stability levels with keywords
> like 0:x86 for ~x86, ..., 3:x86 for stable:x86.
>
> Or, what is the difference? The GLEP doesn't actually explain the meaning of
> 'stable' marking - the uncertainty Stuart refers to.

This is the initial proposal for the GLEP mainly to get comments and to
get the ball rolling from our developers and the community.  As I see
it, pretty much anything in the GLEP is subject to change.

> One possible distinction is: stable status is given to a package that is
> widely enough used and respected in the big bad world and has no known bugs,
> as opposed to a package that's in portage for a month and has no bugs but
> hasn't actually seen much use or been a target for attempted attacks. The
> latter would never move beyond a regular arch keyword.
> Some ebuilds might perhaps never be considered for the stable tree at all
> because the target audience demonstrably isn't interested in them (based also
> on actual usage data after the tree is up).

I agree with this completely.  I see no reason at all for things such as
games to be added to the enterprise Gentoo.  If a user really wants
them, they can grab the ebuild from the "regular" portage tree and add
it to their overlay.   I would see enterprise Gentoo as a stable
platform for use in commercial environments, and by users which value
stability over the most current packages.  This would allow Gentoo to
fit a much larger audience, especially since our "Enterprise" version
would still be free for all to use.

> Both these are an RFC more than a suggestion; I want to understand the GLEP's
> idea, not propose an alternative of my own.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?