1 |
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 07:14:56PM +0200, Achim Gottinger wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Here is an alternative to the package.mask concept. We can start tagging |
4 |
> packages in the cvs tree. So by default you whould checkout the latest rc |
5 |
> instead of the in development versions. If you want to add a development |
6 |
> version to your system you can checkout manually. Instead of using the |
7 |
> gentoo version number for tagging we can use "stable" for all packages not in |
8 |
> development. This should be sufficient for the beginning, but in the future |
9 |
> I think we need to use the version numbers. The past shows that it is a nice |
10 |
> idea to have an allways up to date system, but some updates can create lots |
11 |
> of unexpectable bugs. To avoid messing up all our users system, we can |
12 |
> instead maintain our different releases separate and make only security fixes |
13 |
> to them. So you can allways have a secure rc4,rc5 1.0 1.1 .... |
14 |
|
15 |
I'm not a big fan of cvs, so I'd rather avoid using cvs to handle different |
16 |
versions of Gentoo, except as a last resort. In the future, I think we'll |
17 |
probably have a stable and development branch of Gentoo Linux. But I only want |
18 |
to have a maximum of two (maybe three if we are working on a new stable |
19 |
release) active, secure branches of Gentoo Linux at any time. If possible, I |
20 |
think we should look for ways to avoid dividing Gentoo Linux using cvs because |
21 |
generally this ends up splitting the development team into two camps, or |
22 |
doubling the work of the active developers such as yourself, because then we |
23 |
are effectively supporting two separate versions of Gentoo Linux at the same |
24 |
time. |
25 |
|
26 |
Soon, we'll have all the features in Portage to ensure that the *right* |
27 |
versions of packages get installed (not just the most recent that satisifies |
28 |
the dependency). If we then focus on ensuring that all the various ebuilds on |
29 |
CVS will compile under any version of Gentoo Linux, then I don't think we have |
30 |
a problem anymore. We can have certain expectations as to ebuild compatibility |
31 |
-- for example, we can make a rule that any Gentoo Linux 1.x ebuild should be |
32 |
able to compile on any other Gentoo Linux 1.x system (whether "stable" or |
33 |
"current"). If an ebuild doesn't meet this rule, then this particular version |
34 |
should be blocked out of the appropriate packages files, i.e. |
35 |
<=sys-apps/bash-2.05 would block out sys-apps/bash-2.06 or later. |
36 |
|
37 |
But until we reach version 1.0, we shouldn't even be thinking about creating a |
38 |
"stable" or "unstable" branch of Gentoo Linux.... everything on cvs is |
39 |
"unstable" (technically) at this point. Or, as the BSD people prefer calling |
40 |
it -- "current". |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o> |
44 |
President/CEO http://www.gentoo.org |
45 |
Gentoo Technologies, Inc. |