| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:27:34PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> This could still be done under profiles. Personally, I like the idea of |
| 3 |
> something more like this: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> project/os/arch/version for profiles |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This would give us something like this: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> default/linux/x86/2006.0 |
| 10 |
> default/freebsd/alpha/2006.0 |
| 11 |
> hardened/linux/amd64/2006.0/2.4 |
| 12 |
> hardened/freebsd/x86/2006.0 |
| 13 |
> uclibc/linux/mips/2006.0/cobalt |
| 14 |
> server/linux/x86/2006.0 |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I like... |
| 17 |
That's pretty much what I'm aiming for; not after forcing *you* to do |
| 18 |
server/etc, just would prefer to see it structured so that others can |
| 19 |
do so. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That said, initial email was worded a bit strongly, so pardon ;) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> > Two scenarios for how this will result in visible issues for people- |
| 24 |
> > 1) CVS users, aka, devs. Devs *should* be running latest portage, |
| 25 |
> > which would know about the shift. If they're running an older |
| 26 |
> > portage version and aren't willing to upgrade, they tag the |
| 27 |
> > symlinks themselves. It's a minor annoyance frankly; assuming they |
| 28 |
> > read -dev (like they're suppossed to :P ), they'll know in advance |
| 29 |
> > it's coming. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Many devs use the latest stable versions of packages rather than testing |
| 32 |
> versions. I tend to find this to be a good thing as there are often |
| 33 |
> bugs in particular combinations of package versions that aren't |
| 34 |
> necessarily spotted when running all ~arch. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Also, devs are not required to read or even be subscribed to -dev. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Agreed. Implicit in all this is that I'm going to have to make a bit |
| 39 |
of noise (and probably attempt and get it shoved out via gwn) prior to |
| 40 |
doing it, so that I don't have ~100 devs who didn't hear the news |
| 41 |
looking in my direction. |
| 42 |
~harring |
Archives