From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17447 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2004 21:07:58 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Jul 2004 21:07:58 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BgVGH-0008Vp-PG for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:07:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 13366 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jul 2004 21:07:57 +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 12139 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2004 21:07:57 +0000 From: Dylan Carlson Reply-To: absinthe@gentoo.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:06:44 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <40E4B84B.1040501@scms.waikato.ac.nz> <200407021115.11869.absinthe@gentoo.org> <1088800186.9277.44.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1088800186.9277.44.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407021706.44649.absinthe@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for retirement of old gentoo 'versions' X-Archives-Salt: fa16d954-cd0c-4b03-bc8a-d8976dc82192 X-Archives-Hash: e6b0817abce14f00d7b130cf37ba40bd On Friday 02 July 2004 4:29 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > A "tested profile" would also have to include specific versions, > otherwise there is no way that a person could properly certify the > validity of the test. I agree. The profiles only list ~70 packages and those versions aren't pinned. Although maybe they should be. The difference between the versions in a tested configuration/profile and what ends up getting installed later should include security updates (backported security fixes) -- which is not something we do right now... My point is that I believe we could address this (at least in part) by pinning versions in profiles, and having repoman block commits that attempt to remove ebuilds that are required by a profile. It's not a new idea. This, instead of branching CVS. Although I'm not opposed to that idea either, but IIRC some devs are... Cheers, Dylan Carlson [absinthe@gentoo.org] Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list