From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16925 invoked by uid 1002); 24 Apr 2003 03:50:55 -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 5792 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2003 03:50:55 -0000 From: George Shapovalov Organization: Gentoo Linux To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:50:28 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 References: <49401.192.168.1.70.1051144378.squirrel@gentoo.lan> In-Reply-To: <49401.192.168.1.70.1051144378.squirrel@gentoo.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200304232050.28318.george@gentoo.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-31.9 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_KMAIL version=2.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds not getting in :( X-Archives-Salt: f48e33f3-ce4b-4dfb-a228-181ab9be53fa X-Archives-Hash: e9ee821143ba7bcecf307a2e0b3e975c On Wednesday 23 April 2003 17:32, Stroller wrote: > On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 02:17 pm, Peter Ruskin wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 Apr 2003 13:59, Frantz Dhin wrote: > >> ... maybe we could make a > >> new keyword? x86 for stable, ~x86 for unstable, and ^x86 for lunatic? > > I couldn't agree more! > Me, either! I don't know that "lunatic" is the best word, but it seems > to me that an additional hierarchy [0] allows for a framework more > flexible & extensible for end lusers. As I understand it builds with the Unfortunately this is not that easy. Just accepting ebuild in and letting them rot is either a dead-end or a security breach (or both :). Think about what to do with them as they get tested and about possible submisisons overlappig already existing *core* ebuilds, yek.. ). Please take a look at #1523 to see what's on the plate ;). Only bear in mind, that almost everything in that proposal was written before even KEYWORDS came around, so terminology and, well, pretty much all implementation details are out of date by now.. However the general structure still applies and contains few more (relatively minor as compared to KEYWORDS and gentoo-stats/stable (AKA voting system in that text)) additions. I am afraid it is still too early to talk about implementation details (except may be starategic things), as we need to complete the internal restructuring we are attempting right now (and convincing more devs, that we need this kind of thing implemented, as this was not universally accepted yet :)). But the logical structure can and IMHO should be discussed. One thing I can already tell for sure, is that security of any such system will be an issue of paramount importance if this kind of thing to be accepted. Namely guarantying by implementation that some unassisted submission does not wreak a havoc on user system no mater what profile that user runs (possibly except "definitely-unstable-you've-been-warned" or whatever it's going to be called :)). There are of course more issues of lesser but still major importance to be considered, such as efficiency on all levels... > [1] Am I correctly appreviating "^86, ^PPC or whatever" here? I'm not > doing too well tonight. That'd work, especially if you spell appreviate as abbreviate and make ppc lowercase ;). George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list