public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.0.51 Stability Testing
@ 2004-09-12  2:30 Nicholas Jones
  2004-09-12  3:09 ` [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] " Jason Stubbs
  2004-09-13 16:15 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Nicholas Jones @ 2004-09-12  2:30 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-core, gentoo-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2331 bytes --]


With 2.0.51_pre23 out, we have a mostly bugfree portage that
does a heck of a lot. Now... I am certain that someone will
find something wrong with it eventually, but I'd like for
the persons that find it be expecting something slightly odd.

So...... We need testers. And a lot of them. I've sent out
emails in the past highly recommending that devs use 2.0.51
for continued development and repoman fixes, but now I need
general use testing.

** Note: Teaser used to promote interest **
  emerge -uD world --newuse -pv
** End teaser **

51_pre23 is most of what is expected out of the 51 series.
It's passed catalyst stage building several times, and now
needs to brave the scary waters that would be your fingers.

I watch the total number of downloads of unstable portages
and based upon bug reports in a given timeframe, I can tell
when a portage is ready for ~arch and stable. As this is a
fairly sizable change, I'd like that ratio pretty high.

** Note: Teaser used to promote interest **
  To combat the increadible speedups in portage, we've added
  some new features. FEATURES="gpg [strict] [severe]" These
  new features slow portage back down to apparent execution
  speeds that keep you more at ease. :)
** End teaser **


Ways to help:
  emerge sync
  echo "sys-apps/portage" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
  echo "sys-apps/portage" >> /etc/portage/package.unmask
  emerge portage

Best thing to do is to read the changelog in /usr/share/doc/portage*/
(Yes, I am very aware that it is boing and code intensive reading)
which has all the nitty-gritty on what's been going on in the code.
See what you can break. Avoid going insane here, and try not to go
too far out into the 1337 Ha4x0r style of breakage common to some
types.

Even if you don't wanna seek out those new features that no one
has mentioned publicly yet, You can still test it and give us info.

Just report back whatever breaks or seems wrong. bugs.gentoo.org
If you've got a PORTAGE CODE problem, you could discuss it with
us in #gentoo-portage on irc, if you're uncertain about it, but
PLEASE check bugs.gentoo.org before several hundred people spam
us with the same reports.

Final note... As always, when using a developmental portage,
check for updates when you have a problem, just in case we've
fixed it and rushed out a new release.

--NJ



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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Portage-2.0.51 Stability Testing
  2004-09-12  2:30 [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.0.51 Stability Testing Nicholas Jones
@ 2004-09-12  3:09 ` Jason Stubbs
  2004-09-13 16:15 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Stubbs @ 2004-09-12  3:09 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-core, gentoo-dev

On Sunday 12 September 2004 11:30, Nicholas Jones wrote:
> Just report back whatever breaks or seems wrong. bugs.gentoo.org
> If you've got a PORTAGE CODE problem, you could discuss it with
> us in #gentoo-portage on irc, if you're uncertain about it, but
> PLEASE check bugs.gentoo.org before several hundred people spam
> us with the same reports.

A word on this.. IRC is usually better than bugs.g.o. Questions as to what is 
wrong can be asked straight away and often the problem can be fixed in CVS on 
the spot. With bugs.g.o, it is also often the case that things get lost in 
the constant inflow of petty feature requests and invalid bugs. We pretty 
much have #gentoo-portage covered for 24/7 support, and we rarely bite. :)

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage-2.0.51 Stability Testing
  2004-09-12  2:30 [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.0.51 Stability Testing Nicholas Jones
  2004-09-12  3:09 ` [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] " Jason Stubbs
@ 2004-09-13 16:15 ` Duncan
  2004-09-13 17:30   ` Chris Gianelloni
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2004-09-13 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

Nicholas Jones posted <20040912023012.GA14248@twobit.net>, excerpted
below,  on Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:30:12 -0400:

> So...... We need testers. And a lot of them. I've sent out
> emails in the past highly recommending that devs use 2.0.51
> for continued development and repoman fixes, but now I need
> general use testing.

As a user, I recently /etc/portage/package.unmasked and upgraded to the
2.51 series here, after I saw you urging it on all the developers.  Pretty
smooth, here! =:^)

The biggest problem I've seen is documentation -- the man pages are now a
bit dated.  I know updating them for a devel version isn't all that
worthwhile as features may be dynamically changing during development. 
However, as 2.51 appears to be stabilizing now, perhaps updating the man
pages is in order?

In particular, I noted the emerge instructions mentioning
/etc/portage/virtuals (now /etc/portage/profiles/virtuals, perfect example
of why documenting a development version is attempting to hit a moving
target <g>) and then went to look up any other changes I might have missed
under man portage, but found it hadn't been updated yet.  As I said, not
unreasonable for a development series, so I didn't worry about it. 
However, if it's now stable enough you are looking for user-testers, IMO
it's time to update the man pages as well.

I hadn't thought about /usr/share/doc/portage* for a changelog and etc,
and had already been frustrated (several times) by lack of a useful
changelog for portage in the usual portage tree location, so that's useful
info here!  I'm now off to read it!

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage-2.0.51 Stability Testing
  2004-09-13 16:15 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
@ 2004-09-13 17:30   ` Chris Gianelloni
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chris Gianelloni @ 2004-09-13 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 12:15, Duncan wrote:
> I hadn't thought about /usr/share/doc/portage* for a changelog and etc,
> and had already been frustrated (several times) by lack of a useful
> changelog for portage in the usual portage tree location, so that's useful
> info here!  I'm now off to read it!

Yeah, the in-tree ChangeLog should be the *ebuild* changes, not the
actual package changes.  Many other packages (that ship with one) have
their ChangeLog files in /usr/share/doc, also.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-13 17:31 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-12  2:30 [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.0.51 Stability Testing Nicholas Jones
2004-09-12  3:09 ` [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] " Jason Stubbs
2004-09-13 16:15 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2004-09-13 17:30   ` Chris Gianelloni

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox