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

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 18:11 -0500, Olivier Crete wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-01 at 09:39 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:05:49AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 09:00 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > > > On 06/01/06, Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote:
> > > > 1)  Manpower. There are already 10,000 open bugs in bugzilla (and
> > > > growing) without adding more.
> > >
> > > This is probably the primary reason it died.  This, of course, ties in
> > > greatly to #2.
> >
> > Automation can reduce workload, within limits.  Fex, scripting for
> > yanking packages/deptree out of normal tree for merging into a g19
> > tree.
>
> Baz has developed a script that would yank a subtree with the proper
> deps for the original GLEP 19 effort. It wasn't that hard to do.

No, but it (at least from the last message that I saw) did not update
Manifests/digests.

> And the idea of having a subtree is that the backports would be done by
> a specific group of developers instead of the package maintainers and
> therefore not getting any more work on the other devs.

This would still be the case.  However, having a subtree such as the one
that was used by GLEP19 severely reduces the usability.  For one, the
number of USE flags was reduced to only "server" USE flags, and even
then it only included the "common" ones and omitted all of the others,
making it even less useful and impossible for supporting an "Enterprise
Workstation" from the same tree.

> I'm not really sure why the older one died... We were pretty close to
> being able to build the stages and starting to distribute it... I would
> be very favorable to seeing the whole thing restarted.

I'm pretty sure it died due to lack of involvement.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list