1 |
William L. Thomson Jr. posted on Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:10:42 -0400 as |
2 |
excerpted: |
3 |
|
4 |
> It seems odd that upstream will release a package. Just for downstream |
5 |
> to consider it not stable. Did it get messed up during packaging? Did it |
6 |
> get messed up by the distro? The whole lag thing does not make sense for |
7 |
> Gentoo. Sooner released and tested on Gentoo. Sooner bugs can be |
8 |
> founded, reported back to upstream, etc. Speeds up development. That is |
9 |
> Gentoo's role in FOSS IMHO. |
10 |
|
11 |
Not so odd. Gentoo's arch-stable has a different meaning than upstream's |
12 |
stable. As a long time gentooer I'm surprised you weren't aware of this |
13 |
already. |
14 |
|
15 |
In general (individual packages may differ somewhat on a case-by-case |
16 |
basis, one variant being packages where gentoo /is/ upstream and ~arch is |
17 |
thus used for upstream unstable testing to some degree)... |
18 |
|
19 |
Gentoo's stable doesn't really relate to upstream stable except that |
20 |
upstream betas and the like (well, short-term ones, not the ones that |
21 |
last years without a non-beta release...) aren't normally considered |
22 |
stable candidates because they're not released by upstream as such. |
23 |
Instead, gentoo's stable means that the packaging -- the ebuild script, |
24 |
the eclasses it calls, and the eapi as encoded in pms and deployed by the |
25 |
pm -- is considered tested and stable on a particular arch. Gentoo- |
26 |
stable also includes proper integration, making sure the header files, |
27 |
libs, configuration, documentation, etc, all end up in the place gentooers |
28 |
expect them to be, that they build with our particular toolset, etc. |
29 |
|
30 |
Similarly, upstream-unstable isn't supposed to be a candidate for ~arch |
31 |
either, because ~arch is supposed to be upstream stable that simply |
32 |
hasn't yet had enough testing of its gentoo packaging and integration in |
33 |
ordered for that particular package to be declared stable. |
34 |
|
35 |
That's one reason why ~arch normally works so well for those prepared to |
36 |
manually deal with the occasional packaging or integration hiccup, missed |
37 |
or incorrect dependency, failed merge due to conflict with existing files |
38 |
because upstream moved something and the package hasn't yet adapted to |
39 |
it, etc -- it's releases that upstream has already declared reasonably |
40 |
stable, that simply aren't yet sufficiently tested in terms of the gentoo |
41 |
packaging and integration, and if a user's willing to deal with the |
42 |
occasional hiccup there it should otherwise be as stable as the upstream |
43 |
declaration. |
44 |
|
45 |
Which is why people like me find ~arch quite stable -- it /should/ be for |
46 |
us, as it's upstream stable, and we're prepared to deal with the minor |
47 |
dependency and integration issues, etc, that the process of gentoo |
48 |
stabilization is intended to fix. |
49 |
|
50 |
The problem this thread is seeking to at least incrementally tweak toward |
51 |
the better is that the above only works for people on stable, when people |
52 |
actually declare a package stable when there's no serious bugs left after |
53 |
the testing period. Sometimes they forget, packages drop thru the |
54 |
cracks, etc, and stable users get further behind than they would be if |
55 |
policies were actually being followed. |
56 |
|
57 |
And perhaps more to the point, on the minor archs which tend to be the |
58 |
bottleneck, sometimes there's simply not the resources, either |
59 |
sufficiently interested people with the time (who are volunteers after |
60 |
all, so interest and time can't be commanded) or arch hardware or both, |
61 |
available to do those stabilizations. The proposal here hopes to |
62 |
automate much of the process as well as standardize it, hopefully |
63 |
alleviating that bottleneck. |
64 |
|
65 |
Tho as I've said before, as one who /is/ prepared to deal with the |
66 |
occasional packaging or integration issue and thus finds ~arch perfectly |
67 |
usable, I'd personally have no problem with dropping stable, it's just |
68 |
that I know it to be a practical impossibility, because were we to do so, |
69 |
instead of freeing that time to work on what's now ~arch, we'd simply |
70 |
lose most of the volunteers who have a major interest in stable. |
71 |
|
72 |
-- |
73 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
74 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
75 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |