1 |
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:16:59 +0200 |
2 |
Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Alex Xu wrote: |
5 |
> > >>> Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s |
6 |
> > >>> kernel right away? |
7 |
> > >> |
8 |
> > >> As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the |
9 |
> > >> packages and found them to be reasonably safe for use. |
10 |
> > > .. |
11 |
> > >> Although stable kernels *have* been tested by many people before |
12 |
> > >> use, Gentoo QA has *not* (officially) tested them, at least not |
13 |
> > >> on every architecture. |
14 |
> > > |
15 |
> > > I don't think that matters. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > If you don't care too much for Gentoo QA |
18 |
> |
19 |
> The point is that when arch teams find that they can not keep up with |
20 |
> the pace of upstream and choose never to attempt stabilize v-s then |
21 |
> clearly Gentoo QA will also not be able to keep up with that pace and |
22 |
> thus Gentoo QA becomes irrelevant for the particular package. |
23 |
|
24 |
No, stabilization of vanilla-sources would be an addition in work |
25 |
required; one can not assume that if gentoo-sources is stable than |
26 |
vanilla-sources is or vice versa. Also, the premise here is that |
27 |
vanilla-sources would need to be stabilized every version; and not just |
28 |
once per branch (we would like two or three though) as gentoo-sources. |
29 |
|
30 |
> The original post also mentioned that generally v-s has more fixes |
31 |
> than anything coming from stabilization efforts. |
32 |
|
33 |
More fixes; but also more regressions, new features, more 0-days, ... |
34 |
|
35 |
> It seems that for this package Gentoo QA can not realistically add |
36 |
> any value to this package, hence my suggestion not to pretend that |
37 |
> they can, and just remove the distinction between ~arch and arch for |
38 |
> v-s, and make the latest version available to users by default. |
39 |
|
40 |
That's a contradiction; their added value is it being deemed stable, |
41 |
they can't just pretend it is stable, that overrides the distinction. |
42 |
|
43 |
For as far that I know there is nowhere in the tree we provide matters |
44 |
that walk past Gentoo; so, why should they make an exception here? |
45 |
|
46 |
> > >> On a technical level, it's not that hard to put |
47 |
> > >> "sys-kernel/vanilla-sources" in your package.accept_keywords. |
48 |
> > > |
49 |
> > > But why should Gentoo users have to do that in order to use v-s? |
50 |
> > |
51 |
> > So they acknowledge that vanilla-sources has not been officially |
52 |
> > tested by Gentoo QA. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Since v-s is a special case that Gentoo QA is known not to handle, |
55 |
> this overhead seems completely unneccessary to me. And the usability |
56 |
> is of course poor. |
57 |
|
58 |
If Gentoo QA can't handle it, why could our users; if they are to make |
59 |
a poor sense of stability, that suffices to make it an explicit choice. |
60 |
|
61 |
> > > If it is intentional to push g-s onto users then it makes good |
62 |
> > > sense |
63 |
> .. |
64 |
> > I can't comment on that. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> I guess this is really the pivotal point. If Gentoo prefers to push |
67 |
> g-s rather than v-s then adding overhead for v-s kernels is fine. I'd |
68 |
> prefer Gentoo to push v-s instead. |
69 |
|
70 |
If this weren't intentional, we wouldn't be doing this; the kernel team |
71 |
exists to add value and not just to blindly follow upstream. |
72 |
|
73 |
Let me quote the project description: |
74 |
|
75 |
"With an ever increasing userbase demanding a higher quality of stable, |
76 |
production-ready kernel sources and featureful desktop support the |
77 |
professionalism and staffing of the kernel project is very important. |
78 |
|
79 |
Because we as users want the best from Gentoo Linux we supply a |
80 |
selection of both generic and specialised sources capable of handling |
81 |
the day-to-day grind to make life a little easier. |
82 |
|
83 |
In order to provide a rich choice of high quality kernel trees Gentoo |
84 |
Linux must apply, write and test several kernel patches to the official |
85 |
upstream releases before they can offer finished ebuilds to the users. |
86 |
This is where the Gentoo Kernel project comes into play." |
87 |
|
88 |
-- |
89 |
With kind regards, |
90 |
|
91 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
92 |
Gentoo Developer |
93 |
|
94 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
95 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
96 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |