[gentoo-dev] new ebuild commit/update process with (un)stable?

[gentoo-dev] new ebuild commit/update process with (un)stable?

[Dave Nellans]

now that gentoo has stable/unstable can someone let me know where masked
ebuilds now fit into this process?  i haven't heard any good
explainations of how the system is supposed to work now with three
levels before it hits an "end" user.

dave

-- 
Dave Nellans
605 S. Grand St. Apt 3
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
801-580-0899
http://lucy.wox.org/~dnellans/

Re: [gentoo-dev] new ebuild commit/update process with (un)stable?

[Mike Frysinger]

its all the same portage tree ...
variables and the mask file are how we currently create
these 3 levels.  'stable' is x86, 'unstable' is ~x86, 'broken'
is the mask file.  the end user, without modifications to
their setup, is at the stable level
-mike

On Tuesday 22 October 2002 03:20 pm, Dave Nellans wrote:
> now that gentoo has stable/unstable can someone let me know where masked
> ebuilds now fit into this process?  i haven't heard any good
> explainations of how the system is supposed to work now with three
> levels before it hits an "end" user.

Re: [gentoo-dev] new ebuild commit/update process with (un)stable?

[Dave Nellans]

i understand how the process is actually implement, my question was more
towards the process...  do we have any formal/informal guidelines about
when a package is ready to be moved from package.mask to unstable to
stable? based on labeling a subset of the tree as "unstable" it seems
redundant to have package.mask as well.

hopefully that makes my question a little more clear
d

On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 14:48, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> its all the same portage tree ...
> variables and the mask file are how we currently create
> these 3 levels.  'stable' is x86, 'unstable' is ~x86, 'broken'
> is the mask file.  the end user, without modifications to
> their setup, is at the stable level
> -mike
> 
> On Tuesday 22 October 2002 03:20 pm, Dave Nellans wrote:
> > now that gentoo has stable/unstable can someone let me know where masked
> > ebuilds now fit into this process?  i haven't heard any good
> > explainations of how the system is supposed to work now with three
> > levels before it hits an "end" user.
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> 
-- 
Dave Nellans
605 S. Grand St. Apt 3
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
801-580-0899
http://lucy.wox.org/~dnellans/

Re: [gentoo-dev] new ebuild commit/update process with (un)stable?

[Mike Frysinger]

unstable != broken
as for going from unstable to stable, the developers test it,
we gather input from end users, etc...
-mike

On Tuesday 22 October 2002 05:06 pm, Dave Nellans wrote:
> i understand how the process is actually implement, my question was more
> towards the process...  do we have any formal/informal guidelines about
> when a package is ready to be moved from package.mask to unstable to
> stable? based on labeling a subset of the tree as "unstable" it seems
> redundant to have package.mask as well.