Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:24:01
Message-Id: 4395BA92.1070102@egr.msu.edu
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond... by Marius Mauch
1 Marius Mauch wrote:
2
3 >On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900
4 >Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote:
5 >
6 >
7 >
8 >>So I'm going to make a decision and offer until Friday (Saturday in
9 >>my time) for opposers to solidify and state any opposition. If
10 >>there's no solid opposition, Saturday I will put current trunk into
11 >>~arch as 2.1_beta20051210. I will also post on the 2.0.53 bug that
12 >>fixes are available for the ldconfig bug and the tee bug stating that
13 >>we'd like to also add trunk's cache subsystem to 2.0.54 and that
14 >>dependening on the next council meeting(?) the SHA1 enabling as well.
15 >>Doing it this way will make the ~arch users happy straight away. If
16 >>we look at it as our responsibility to get fixes and new
17 >>functionality into ~arch then our jobs done and we can get back to
18 >>business.
19 >>
20 >>
21 >
22 >Well, I've already stated several times that IMO using a 2.1 branch is
23 >wrong (use 2.2 instead), but if I'm overvoted, so it shall be.
24 >As for the cache rewrite in 2.0.54, I don't really prefer one way or the
25 >other, from an engineering POV it is 2.2 material, but if it is a major
26 >improvement and well tested it can also be in .54 (just in case my
27 >previous mail was misunderstood).
28 >
29 >
30 >
31 >>As for stable users? If arch teams are willing to selectively choose
32 >>what fixes they want backported to stable (when they're not prepared
33 >>to move the ~arch version into stable) things will go much smoother.
34 >>Of course, it would still be our responsibility to get those things
35 >>backported and assert some confidence that it is working. However,
36 >>once the requested fixes are backported all that needs to be done is
37 >>put out the patched stable version with ~arch keywords and then leave
38 >>it up to the arch teams again. Except for the slight extra burden on
39 >>(which I believe many would actually find to be a blessing), it
40 >>should be a win-win situation.
41 >>
42 >>
43 >
44 >
45 >
46 I spoke with Brian today ( no clue if he will be sending mail or not )
47 but he stressed that he would like the cache rewrite in ~arch. I would
48 prefer that it be in .54, the code itself is old, 6+ months. It is a
49 straight backport from the 2.1 branch (the dead one) and the interface
50 code to make it fit with 2.0 is small compared to the patch size ( Brian
51 estimated 100-150 lines ). I don't have a problem with releasing 2
52 ebuilds, one with the patch and one without ( or a use flag ) although
53 the question that raises is will the cache rewrite actually end up in
54 .54 final, or will it be put off :)
55
56 >Just in case you forgot and also for general reference, when I asked
57 >the arch teams about the portage keywording policy a few months ago
58 >(wether we should stable even without testing on all archs or to
59 >delegate that to arch teams) everyone seemed to be happy with the old
60 >policy, at least nobody voted for a change. As portage doesn't really
61 >have any arch specific code and a rather short dep list IMO it also
62 >doesn't yield any real benefit other than more people testing it (which
63 >is of course always a good thing).
64 >
65 >Marius
66 >
67 >
68 >
69
70 --
71 gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond... Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>