1 |
Tom Wijsman posted on Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:28:09 +0100 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> Another option (and I don't mean to step on any toes or call anyone out |
4 |
>> here, these are just examples) may be to just deprecate stabilizing |
5 |
>> certain software. Packages such as the stuff in app-vim/ or app-emacs/ |
6 |
>> or some games or some scientific software. For the editor plugins, most |
7 |
>> people do not get them from the package manager I feel and a Vim plugin |
8 |
>> requires almost as much arch testing work as a new version of grep, for |
9 |
>> example... |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Sounds like a good idea, but how do we translate that to the user; |
12 |
> always mark them stable, or always mark them unstable? Do we want users |
13 |
> to explicitly accept keywords on these packages? |
14 |
|
15 |
As a ~arch/masked/overlay/live user here (who additionally doesn't even |
16 |
use gentoo kernel ebuilds, preferring direct upstream git and my own |
17 |
scripts), I haven't even checked if it actually happened (looks like |
18 |
gentoo-sources-3.10.x is still stable on x86/amd64, so maybe not), but... |
19 |
|
20 |
There was previous discussion of destable-keywording the kernel. How has |
21 |
that gone? |
22 |
|
23 |
I've always thought that having a stable policy exception that the user |
24 |
actually has to deal with for certain packages, particularly core |
25 |
packages such as the kernel, would be confusing at best. Still, given |
26 |
the upstream development pattern, I couldn't think of a reasonable |
27 |
alternative for the kernel, and agreed with the thread that it may have |
28 |
to be, for packages like that and perhaps google-chrome and firefox, |
29 |
where upstream releases are too close to 30-day and updates are very |
30 |
likely to be security-critical on packages that are net-exposed. |
31 |
|
32 |
So it seemed it had to be, for them, and if that has gone well, perhaps |
33 |
expanding that no-stable policy precedent to things like editor plugins |
34 |
could work better than I might have imagined. |
35 |
|
36 |
The other question then becomes, since ~arch packages are normally masked |
37 |
to stable, how are users exposed to them? What about a file somewhere in |
38 |
profiles that lists all these no-stable packages, such that the PM can |
39 |
(perhaps optionally, I could imagine a setting in make.conf...) list all |
40 |
~arch versions of those packages on an otherwise stable system as if they |
41 |
were stable, tho possibly marked in some way to indicate that this |
42 |
package isn't a stable-keyword candidate? |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
46 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
47 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |