From: Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for retirement of old gentoo 'versions'
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 00:10:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040705001000.405fbd0a@sven.genone.homeip.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200407030234.18628.absinthe@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1828 bytes --]
On 07/03/04 Dylan Carlson wrote:
> On Friday 02 July 2004 5:37 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Pinning versions in the profiles sounds pretty cool, but it turns
> > *every* package maintainer and arch maintainer into a profile
> > maintainer, which I think is a bad idea. It also bloats the portage
> > tree, since there would be multiple versions of every ebuild,
> > compared to the one or two for most packages that we have now. I
> > still think that the "pinned" tree should be a separate branch.
>
> It wouldn't turn everyone into profile maintainers -- it would just
> ensure that no ebuild gets removed accidentally that is required by a
> profile, by repoman's QA check. If that ebuild *needs* to be removed
> for any reason (let's say a vulnerability) then it would be up to the
> arch herds to update their profile(s) accordingly -- not up to the
> herd/maintainer of the package.
One major problem with version pinning in the profiles is that the
packages file is an *inclusion* mask, so if you specify one exact
version portage won't allow users to use any other version of that
package. I don't think that we want to force specific versions on users.
If we do so they will start to modify the profiles locally which would
be an even worse problem.
I could also imagine some problems related to the current implementation
of stacked profiles, but that's implementation specific.
If you only want a repoman check I'd rather recommend to introduce a new
file that contains names and versions of packages that have to be in the
tree for that profile, but anyway this needs a GLEP before it could be
considered.
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-04 22:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-02 1:20 [gentoo-dev] Policy for retirement of old gentoo "versions" Barry Shaw
2004-07-02 2:17 ` [gentoo-dev] Policy for retirement of old gentoo 'versions' Donnie Berkholz
2004-07-02 12:48 ` Chris Gianelloni
2004-07-02 13:44 ` William Kenworthy
2004-07-02 14:41 ` Grant Goodyear
2004-07-02 15:15 ` Dylan Carlson
2004-07-02 20:29 ` Chris Gianelloni
2004-07-02 21:06 ` Dylan Carlson
2004-07-02 21:37 ` Chris Gianelloni
2004-07-03 6:34 ` Dylan Carlson
2004-07-04 22:10 ` Marius Mauch [this message]
2004-07-05 1:14 ` Dylan Carlson
2004-07-04 22:16 ` Barry Shaw
2004-07-05 1:01 ` Dylan Carlson
2004-07-05 2:19 ` Barry Shaw
2004-07-02 20:21 ` Chris Gianelloni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040705001000.405fbd0a@sven.genone.homeip.net \
--to=genone@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox