From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8253 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2004 21:34:20 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Jul 2004 21:34:20 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BgVfn-0007go-0s for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:34:19 +0000 Received: (qmail 10470 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jul 2004 21:34:18 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 4690 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2004 21:34:18 +0000 From: Chris Gianelloni Reply-To: wolf31o2@gentoo.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200407021706.44649.absinthe@gentoo.org> References: <40E4B84B.1040501@scms.waikato.ac.nz> <200407021115.11869.absinthe@gentoo.org> <1088800186.9277.44.camel@localhost> <200407021706.44649.absinthe@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-zC15aV7ZXYmwlDFENs7/" Organization: Gentoo Linux Message-Id: <1088804249.9271.55.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:37:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for retirement of old gentoo 'versions' X-Archives-Salt: 4e478d6a-c70f-49df-848a-3e608871c6fc X-Archives-Hash: ba8643bc6943a3f0e6bf11805aeed7aa --=-zC15aV7ZXYmwlDFENs7/ Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 17:06, Dylan Carlson wrote: > On Friday 02 July 2004 4:29 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > A "tested profile" would also have to include specific versions, > > otherwise there is no way that a person could properly certify the > > validity of the test. >=20 > I agree. The profiles only list ~70 packages and those versions aren't=20 > pinned. Although maybe they should be. The difference between the=20 > versions in a tested configuration/profile and what ends up getting=20 > installed later should include security updates (backported security=20 > fixes) -- which is not something we do right now... ...and I doubt that we ever will. Gentoo tries to remain as much like the upstream packages as possible, which means we're more likely to require an upgrade than to back-port a patch. This is the exact reason why any plans for an enterprise version of Gentoo all focus on being a separate project from Gentoo proper. I know for a fact that I don't want to waste the precious development time that I have doing the mundane task of back-porting patches to some old version of a package that I've long since forgotten. > My point is that I believe we could address this (at least in part) by=20 > pinning versions in profiles, and having repoman block commits that=20 > attempt to remove ebuilds that are required by a profile. It's not a new= =20 > idea. This, instead of branching CVS. Although I'm not opposed to tha= t=20 > idea either, but IIRC some devs are... Pinning versions in the profiles sounds pretty cool, but it turns *every* package maintainer and arch maintainer into a profile maintainer, which I think is a bad idea. It also bloats the portage tree, since there would be multiple versions of every ebuild, compared to the one or two for most packages that we have now. I still think that the "pinned" tree should be a separate branch. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer Gentoo Linux Is your power animal a penguin? --=-zC15aV7ZXYmwlDFENs7/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBA5dWZkT4lNIS36YERAnG6AKCf1jIMFtfVElNoCcOh64KC9vExegCfcvyz CIIlSCfXlu3oSKYO9+8DdVM= =oT5H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-zC15aV7ZXYmwlDFENs7/--