1 |
El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 10:36 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió: |
2 |
> El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:07 -0500, William Hubbs escribió: |
3 |
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
4 |
> > > On 07/25/14 15:50, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
5 |
> > > > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: |
6 |
> > > >> On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
7 |
> > > >>> That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to |
8 |
> > > >>> do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and |
9 |
> > > >>> drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be accomplished |
10 |
> > > >>> in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would solve |
11 |
> > > >>> the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in the |
12 |
> > > >>> past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary, have a |
13 |
> > > >>> stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help people in |
14 |
> > > >>> ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of being |
15 |
> > > >>> much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as opposed |
16 |
> > > >>> to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with tons |
17 |
> > > >>> of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords years ago |
18 |
> > > >>> and are currently no so important. |
19 |
> > > >>> |
20 |
> > > >> Yes, please let's just do base system stable. I've been randomly taking |
21 |
> > > >> care of ppc but nothing systematic. Its pretty spotty. But at the same |
22 |
> > > >> time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization effort |
23 |
> > > >> on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think about |
24 |
> > > >> for mips too. |
25 |
> > > >> |
26 |
> > > >> |
27 |
> > > > Nice, one think we would need to discuss is what do we consider base |
28 |
> > > > system :/ |
29 |
> > > > |
30 |
> > > > I guess packages maintained by base-system, toolchain and... xorg-server |
31 |
> > > > and co... what more |
32 |
> > > > |
33 |
> > > > Not sure if we could have a list of current stable tree for ppc*, once |
34 |
> > > > do we have that list, ppc* teams can drop from that list what they want |
35 |
> > > > and we get a new list that will be the final result. What do you think |
36 |
> > > > about that? |
37 |
> > > > |
38 |
> > > > |
39 |
> > > |
40 |
> > > At the very least, its what's needed to build the stages with catalyst. |
41 |
> > > I would think we should start with base/packages, but I don't want to |
42 |
> > > limit it to just those because I at least need a more for building and |
43 |
> > > maintaining. Where should we start to compile such a list? |
44 |
> > |
45 |
> > If we are going to do this, I think we should drop these arch's |
46 |
> > to exp status in the profiles. That way, it keeps repoman from bothering |
47 |
> > the rest of us about stabilizations, and we don't have to worry about |
48 |
> > filing stable requests on them. |
49 |
> > |
50 |
> > That would let you stabilize things that you need to build the stages. |
51 |
> > |
52 |
> > William |
53 |
> > |
54 |
> |
55 |
> But, moving ppc* to exp wouldn't lead us to likely break their tree? |
56 |
> (because we wouldn't get any dependency issue even with "base" |
57 |
> packages...) |
58 |
> |
59 |
> |
60 |
|
61 |
I was thinking in this plan: |
62 |
- Get a list with all packages stable on ppc |
63 |
- Drop from that list what ppc teams want |
64 |
- Run on all that packages ekeyword ~ppc* |
65 |
- Run repoman to the full tree to fix the dependencies, use.stable.mask |
66 |
some, tune the list of stable packages... |