Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2350 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 20:33 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > It's simple.  You mask expat-2.0.0 on all the current profiles, we mark
> > it stable in the snapshot and don't have it masked in the 2007.1
> > profile.  When we release (actually right before), we mark the package
> > stable in the tree.  We document the expat upgrade as part of the
> > profile upgrade guide, and we're done.  Users using a <=2007.0 profile
> > never see the upgrade.  New users use the new expat.  Users changing to
> > the 2007.1 profile run revdep-rebuild.
> 
> +1
> 
> Now, how can we do this? Could we start changing the profiles right now?

Considering we already have a 2.0.0 ebuild, we do the following:

- Mask >=2.0.0-r9 (this allows for security bumps, if necessary, number
can be adjusted)
- Copy 2.0.0 to 2.0.0-r9
- When we make a new 2007.1 profile, don't mask >=2.0.0-r9
- Stable 2.0.0-r9 in the 2007.1 snapshot and mark it stable in the tree
with the release
- ???
- Profit!

> (I guess people on ~arch will need to unmask it to not downgrade).

Well, with what I have said, there's room for version bumps, if
required.  It also means ~arch people don't have to do anything.  There
won't be any downgrade and we simply never mark anything below 2.0.0-r9
stable to keep stable users safe.

> Should this be brought to the next council meeting?

Is that really necessary?  What can the Council do that we cannot agree
upon here as civil adults?  I think we can agree to do this ourselves.
I can definitely agree to it from a Release Engineering standpoint.  It
would work quite well and is beneficial to our users.

> Chris, I could write a small paragraph for whatever GWN explaining what
> stable and unstable users will have to do if you want.

Sure.  However, if we did follow my draft plan above, there would be no
need.  Users running ~arch have probably hit this already by now, so I
don't think we would be informing too many people.  That being said, it
would make a cool article.  Even if just to show that, yes, we really do
care for our users and think about ways to reduce the impact on their
systems.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]