| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:25 PM Francesco Riosa <vivo75@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Il giorno mar 5 ott 2021 alle ore 10:31 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> ha scritto: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Hi, everyone. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent |
| 9 |
>> FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS |
| 10 |
>> branch of Portage. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Roughly, the idea is that: |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> - master becomes 3.1.x, and primary development happens there |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> - 3.0.x becomes the LTS branch and only major bugfixes are backported |
| 17 |
>> there |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> As things settle down in the future, master would become 3.2.x, 3.1.x |
| 20 |
>> would become LTS, 3.0.x will be discontinued and so on. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> WDYT? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Sorry but portage is too strictly related to the ebuilds in tree, recent removal of EAPI=5 from most eclasses underlined that. |
| 26 |
> Or to put id differently if you want a LTS portage you also need a certain number of "protected" eclasses and ebuilds |
| 27 |
> It seems a lot of (very appreciated but don't count on me) work |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think this is backwards a bit. The idea is to backport things from |
| 30 |
the main (development) branch to the LTS branch such that the tree |
| 31 |
continues to work for both; no? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
This seems mostly related to "what is a bugfix and will be backported |
| 34 |
into LTS" and "what is a feature and is not backportable for LTS" in |
| 35 |
terms of what the tree will rely on. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-A |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>> -- |
| 44 |
>> Best regards, |
| 45 |
>> Michał Górny |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>> |
| 48 |
>> |
Archives