| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 00:08, foser wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 00:08, Ian Leitch wrote: |
| 6 |
> > As I'm sure all devs know, ~arch is used for other things than just |
| 7 |
> > testing ebuilds. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > "The purpose of ~arch is for testing new packages added to Portage. This |
| 10 |
> > is not the equivalent of "testing" of "unstable" in other |
| 11 |
> > distributions." - Development Policy |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Well then that is a violation of policy. Developers who do this should |
| 14 |
> 'change their ways'. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Or change the policy |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I think package.mask is indeed not the best solution for development |
| 20 |
> versions of packages, but neither do i think we should have an official |
| 21 |
> 'unstable branch'. We have trouble enough to keep 'stable' stable and |
| 22 |
> up-to-date as it is, no need to add another official burden to it. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I like the idea of adding this keyword. There are packages whose ebuilds are |
| 26 |
stable, and are reasonably stable, but still release candidates etc. |
| 27 |
Currently the status of such packages is unclear. Sometimes they are put into |
| 28 |
stable, sometimes they stay masked, and sometimes they are marked testing |
| 29 |
(which they should start out with, as then they are new). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Take for example the openoffice-1.1_rc? series. Those from rc3 onwards have |
| 32 |
been almost equal to the final release (what source is concerned, the build |
| 33 |
procedure was fixed). Current policy required them to be masked as they are |
| 34 |
unstable releases, while in fact being quite stable. We had various requests |
| 35 |
to remove them from the package.mask file. That, however, would be a |
| 36 |
violation of policy. An extra keyword could help in that respect. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> How would stable become more stable ? Stable should be stable as it is, |
| 39 |
> if it isn't because of development packages, then that is because |
| 40 |
> developers do not follow policy as it stands (or interpret it the wrong |
| 41 |
> way). That was put into place to ensure stability. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
I think he means by not including development packages that come from upstream |
| 44 |
except in exception cases. I do think that even packages that would use the |
| 45 |
new keyword would need to follow the current stability policy. Another option |
| 46 |
could be just to add an extra keyword say "dev" that would be arch |
| 47 |
independent, but would signal the development package status of the upstream |
| 48 |
sources. This would need some portage changes as packages should then only be |
| 49 |
merged if this keyword is not specified unless the user makes changes to |
| 50 |
make.conf |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> The only reason i see for adding an extra layer is for 'big' stuff that |
| 54 |
> needs serious testing : KDE/GNOME development series maybe, arch |
| 55 |
> additions to the tree (amd64 anyone), introduction of new eclasses, etc. |
| 56 |
> Those should be entered to the tree in some special protected |
| 57 |
> environment first, where they get proper testing (maybe by a selected |
| 58 |
> few) and then when reaching stability can be added to the tree with |
| 59 |
> relative ease (not one developer throwing in his local tree one night at |
| 60 |
> once). |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
I think that is another discussion although I agree with it. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Paul |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
- -- |
| 68 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 69 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 70 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 71 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
| 72 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 73 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
iD8DBQE/gotcbKx5DBjWFdsRArtNAJ92M93RKGc/HRGEbZIv1SA/+q18MACdF3eF |
| 76 |
5njnf+oL4m6x1TG/Qofo6Xs= |
| 77 |
=vwUw |
| 78 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
-- |
| 82 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives