Re: [gentoo-dev] Three teir portage: stable, prestable, unstable?

[Ian Leitch <port001@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 21:51, Lisa Seelye wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 17:47, Ian Leitch wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > I'm sure this HAS to have been discussed before, and if it has, it was
> > before my time. I'd like to hear peoples opinions and what the
> > conclusion was from earlier discussions. 
> > 
> > Just to make everything clear, I will outline exactly what I have in
> > mind. 
> > 
> > In my view, the portage tree would benefit from having the following:
> 
> How?  Why does this warrant a radical change to the system?

As I'm sure all devs know, ~arch is used for other things than just
testing ebuilds.

"The purpose of ~arch is for testing new packages added to Portage. This
is not the equivalent of "testing" of "unstable" in other
distributions." - Development Policy

Making these changes would sort out this little problem/mess whatever
you want to call it. I also think the extra unstable branch would take
some weight off package.mask, which could then be reserved for the need
to mask a package for temporary licensing issues etc.. without removing
it from portage. 

Stable would also gradulay become more stable. We can't match Debian for
stability but we could have the best of both worlds: up-to-date,
reasonably stable software. This must be pretty attractive to those
using Gentoo on the server and more importantly, those thinking about
it. 

Regards,
Ian. 



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list