Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:17:05
Message-Id: 20130724181659.12207.qmail@stuge.se
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change by Alex Xu
1 Alex Xu wrote:
2 > >>> Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s kernel
3 > >>> right away?
4 > >>
5 > >> As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages
6 > >> and found them to be reasonably safe for use.
7 > > ..
8 > >> Although stable kernels *have* been tested by many people before use,
9 > >> Gentoo QA has *not* (officially) tested them, at least not on every
10 > >> architecture.
11 > >
12 > > I don't think that matters.
13 >
14 > If you don't care too much for Gentoo QA
15
16 The point is that when arch teams find that they can not keep up with
17 the pace of upstream and choose never to attempt stabilize v-s then
18 clearly Gentoo QA will also not be able to keep up with that pace and
19 thus Gentoo QA becomes irrelevant for the particular package.
20
21 There will never be Gentoo QA on v-s.
22
23 The original post also mentioned that generally v-s has more fixes
24 than anything coming from stabilization efforts.
25
26 It seems that for this package Gentoo QA can not realistically add
27 any value to this package, hence my suggestion not to pretend that
28 they can, and just remove the distinction between ~arch and arch for
29 v-s, and make the latest version available to users by default.
30
31
32 > >> On a technical level, it's not that hard to put
33 > >> "sys-kernel/vanilla-sources" in your package.accept_keywords.
34 > >
35 > > But why should Gentoo users have to do that in order to use v-s?
36 >
37 > So they acknowledge that vanilla-sources has not been officially tested
38 > by Gentoo QA.
39
40 Since v-s is a special case that Gentoo QA is known not to handle,
41 this overhead seems completely unneccessary to me. And the usability
42 is of course poor.
43
44
45 > > If it is intentional to push g-s onto users then it makes good sense
46 ..
47 > I can't comment on that.
48
49 I guess this is really the pivotal point. If Gentoo prefers to push
50 g-s rather than v-s then adding overhead for v-s kernels is fine. I'd
51 prefer Gentoo to push v-s instead.
52
53
54 //Peter

Replies