Re: [gentoo-dev] Where to put prerelease vanilla kernels?

[Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3028 bytes --]

On 24/07/2003 at 10:28:57(+0200), Sven Vermeulen used 1.6K just to say:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:16:03PM -0400, Matt Rickard wrote:
> > I'm wondering what's the best way to handle these?  First option is to
> > put them in vanilla-sources, for example,
> > vanilla-sources-2.4.22_pre7.ebuild.  If we ~ mask them, people using the
> > unstable profile will get these prerelease kernels if merging
> > vanilla-sources.  I'm not sure this is desired behavior, however, it IS
> > the unstable profile :)  
> 
> Its more like the testing. ~arch is when a developer deems his package ready
> for inclusion. 
> 
> > Another option is to create a separate category for these, something
> > like pre-vanilla-sources.  This has the benefit that people who want
> > vanilla will get only vanilla, and not a prerelease -- regardless of
> > which profile they are using.
> 
> I don't like this idea (even though I'm in the minority here :). First of
> all, when the _pre's are finished and the stable kernel is released, people
> which are using pre-vanilla-sources will be stuck at the latest _pre (or
> _testing).
> 
> And when they emerge the vanilla-sources, they'll miss the next _pre cycle.
>  
> Personally, I would go for package.mask

Wow... I was getting scared seeing how this thread developed, but in the end,
after reading this post, I realized that the world has not gone *completely*
mad, after all.

I fully support the opinions stated above, and I simply cannot comprehend what
the big deal with ~arch masking vanilla-sources is. Even *considering* the
option of a separate package is ridiculous. As long as developers are careful
enough to not remove the ~arch mask from any _pre kernel, I am perfectly fine,
and I believe there wouldn't be anyone who isn't fine. What are we trying to do
-- make sure people who insist on running the *unstable* profile actually don't
get the "unstable" sources. There is also the package.mask if you feel that is
not enough, but this was also mentioned already. And the decision that was
taken is ... weird.  What is the idea in having unstable (i.e. ~masked)
packages in the first place? Are you going to keep only stable versions in
vanilla-sources? What's the point? Why not move all _pre, _alpha ane _beta
versions of packages in separate directories? As it was already mentioned, _pre
kernels are more stable than many other packages. The first one I can think of
is gentoo-sources, that insisted on corrupting my filesystem every now and
then, so I couldn't upgrade my glibc, without upgrading to vanilla-sources
first (some files were having funny contents during compilation but it was hard
to reproduce), and I am running vanilla-sources ever since.

Sorry for the tone, but I feel frustrated.

-- 
()   Georgi Georgiev   () A committee is a life form with six or more  ()
()    chutz@gg3.net    () legs and no brain. -- Lazarus Long, "Time    ()
()  +81(90)6266-1163   () Enough For Love"                             ()

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]