| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:38:07PM +0200, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 03 February 2004 12:39, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The main issue that the stable keyword is trying to solve is the |
| 4 |
> > following: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > How can we have package maintainers indicate in an easy way those |
| 7 |
> > packages that are candidates for inclusion in the frozen tree. Those |
| 8 |
> > ebuilds can then be collected into the stable branch automatically. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > One solution is to ask developers to set the stable flag on an ebuild. |
| 11 |
> > The newest package with this keyword would than be included into the |
| 12 |
> > tree. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > There are however problems with the keywords solution. The big problem is |
| 15 |
> > that it is not easy to know which auxiliary files (patches) are needed |
| 16 |
> > for a particular ebuild. I think a better approach would be a staging |
| 17 |
> > area of some kind where the relevant ebuilds could be entered into |
| 18 |
> > (possibly in cat/package-version directories). The inclusion script |
| 19 |
> > could then test building the package and then include it into the |
| 20 |
> > to-be-frozen tree. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > After the frozen tree is released the staging area could be cleaned up |
| 23 |
> > (or archived for later reference). |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I understand why a keyword might be useful in marking ebuilds that'll go into |
| 26 |
> a stable branch. However, you haven't ansewred my question - why have a |
| 27 |
> separate cvs branch at all? Why not just use keywords as we do now for |
| 28 |
> arch/~arch? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
My own opinion: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
1. The size of the tree. If this is to be an enterprise tree, its likely |
| 33 |
that it won't have an ebuild for every package as most enterprise people |
| 34 |
won't want x (name an obscure desktop related package). Quicker |
| 35 |
synchrosing and easier backup/restore and less clutter is good. This |
| 36 |
isn't a big issue really though. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
2. Guaranteed someone will "clean" an ebuild thinking its to old and |
| 39 |
needs to be removed. This is a big issue. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
If its a seperate tree where only people who know the rules of the tree |
| 42 |
work, its more likely to stay consistant and not have stuff removed that |
| 43 |
shouldn't be. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
rob holland - [ tigger@g.o ] |
| 47 |
irc://irc.freenode.net/#gentoo as tigger^ |
| 48 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tigger/tigger@××××××××××.asc |
Archives