From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2571 invoked by uid 1002); 6 Oct 2003 21:20:49 -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 24648 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 21:20:49 -0000 From: Stuart Herbert To: Ian Leitch , gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 22:00:32 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <1065476836.4871.22.camel@Interimo.Intern.LAN> In-Reply-To: <1065476836.4871.22.camel@Interimo.Intern.LAN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_wfdg/mrmhi1/sTd"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200310062200.32548.stuart@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Three teir portage: stable, prestable, unstable? X-Archives-Salt: 0a868c2a-aca6-4902-9b05-b518a7a05a63 X-Archives-Hash: 5d6195a39574ca33aa861bb636227bc4 --Boundary-02=_wfdg/mrmhi1/sTd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline tberman was discussing this sort of change some time ago. Might be helpful= if=20 he could let us know the status of this ;-) Stu =2D- On Monday 06 October 2003 10:47 pm, Ian Leitch wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm sure this HAS to have been discussed before, and if it has, it was > before my time. I'd like to hear peoples opinions and what the > conclusion was from earlier discussions. > > Just to make everything clear, I will outline exactly what I have in > mind. > > In my view, the portage tree would benefit from having the following: > > STABLE arch: > Obvious realy, stable packages only. Considered a stable ebuild and > stable software. > > PRESTABLE (perhaps called Testing?) ~arch: > Only software considered stable but whos ebuild is considered unstable > or just badly written. OpenOffice is a good example: 1.1 is a stable > release but the ebuild contains warnings about the ebuild itself being > alpha. > > UNSTABLE >arch (or some other symbol): > Software stability takes precedence over ebuild stability here, eg a > package whos ebuild was very small and perfectly writen but the software > itself was considered unstable would be marked unstable and not > prestable. > > > Regards, > Ian. > > > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list =2D-=20 Stuart Herbert stuart@gentoo.o= rg Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.or= g/ Beta packages for download http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/package= s/ Come and meet me in March 2004 http://www.phparch.com/cruis= e/ GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint =3D 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C =2D- --Boundary-02=_wfdg/mrmhi1/sTd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/gdfwDC+AuvmvxXwRAoLvAJ49wBVFrUHvuEK+cLRb6papYeDj2gCdFPwe mFWitI67tKxnA4MAzr5GPio= =TTOW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_wfdg/mrmhi1/sTd--