| 1 |
On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 10:15 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 10:31 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi, everyone. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent |
| 6 |
> > FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS |
| 7 |
> > branch of Portage. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I think this is healthy for most software projects, but two things |
| 11 |
> stand out to me for portage specifically: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> 1. Most portage users can fake this already by telling portage to |
| 14 |
> accept only stable keywords for sys-apps/portage. I know it's not |
| 15 |
> exactly the same, but it provides many of the same benefits. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That's not going to be possible long-term when I start making more |
| 18 |
changes ;-). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> 2. What happens to the LTS branch when the next EAPI is released? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I haven't really thought about it. Are you suggesting that we could |
| 24 |
bump 'master' Portage to newer EAPI earlier or...? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Michał Górny |
Archives