| 1 |
On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems |
| 7 |
>>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying. |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the stage |
| 11 |
>>>> tarballs. |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>> When sys-apps/portage changes its internal defaults, I'd like for the |
| 14 |
>>>> upgrade process to call a tool that generates configuration files when |
| 15 |
>>>> necessary to ensure that the existing paths remain constant. |
| 16 |
>>> I think it should be possible for RelEng to make a start on catalyst |
| 17 |
>>> updates - is there anything that would inhibit going ahead with this, |
| 18 |
>>> potentially? |
| 19 |
>> No, nothing. Whatever catalyst puts it the default config will become |
| 20 |
>> our new default. |
| 21 |
> I would still like to see notice about what the new defaults are and how |
| 22 |
> to migrate current systems to them. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Thanks, |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> William |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>> -- |
| 30 |
>> Thanks, |
| 31 |
>> Zac |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
I'd like to propose that further to the discussion here on the -dev |
| 36 |
mailing list, the Council discuss and make a firm proposal on the new |
| 37 |
default paths, and then RelEng can make the appropriate updates to the |
| 38 |
catalyst builds. A news item can be compiled, with an appropriate wiki |
| 39 |
article perhaps on migration strategy (I may volunteer to format such a |
| 40 |
page with some appropriate guidance). |
| 41 |
Regards, |
| 42 |
Michael / veremitz. |
Archives