From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8821381F3 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:25:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5383E0C10; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.182]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA142E0BCD for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:25:32 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtsKABK/CFFFpYyv/2dsb2JhbABEvhECexdzgh4BAQQBOhwoCwsYCRMSDwUlN4d/AwkGDLEThiwXiUuNTxKCSGEDjX6IDoEdhGGIcIFegxM X-IPAS-Result: AtsKABK/CFFFpYyv/2dsb2JhbABEvhECexdzgh4BAQQBOhwoCwsYCRMSDwUlN4d/AwkGDLEThiwXiUuNTxKCSGEDjX6IDoEdhGGIcIFegxM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="22669728" Received: from 69-165-140-175.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([69.165.140.175]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2013 17:25:23 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:25:23 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:25:23 -0400 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies Message-ID: <20130820212523.GA18970@waltdnes.org> References: <20130820181910.GA2204@linux1> <5213CDBD.1010904@orlitzky.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5213CDBD.1010904@orlitzky.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: a7267da3-0693-4b6d-a9a7-086221db28d0 X-Archives-Hash: bc9d03a7029fa0e5c119c607c00c1dcd On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 04:12:45PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote > On 08/20/2013 02:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > My question is, how can we improve our stabilization > > procedures/policies so we can convince people not to run production > > servers on ~arch and keep the stable tree more up to date? > > Just delete /etc/conf.d/net with an ~arch update every once in a while, > that should convince them =) > > Stable is fine for the most part. The bitrot complaint is basically "I > can't be bothered to add packages to > /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords individually." What he said. > Most of our servers have one or two packages in there, for which I've > already filed a stabilization bug. From a regular user POV, I occasionally have one or 2 packages that I keyword, because I want their specific feature; e.g. a ~ version of UFRAW that will read the RAW format from my new camera, which stable won't. I can see giving up on vanilla-sources kernels. See http://gentoo.2317880.n4.nabble.com/newsitem-Kernel-Team-vanilla-sources-policy-td266519.html Executive summary... the releases are so fast+furious, that keeping up with stabilization is not possible, so it'll always be ~. > It sucks, but it's still better than running ~arch. Problems like this > should be fixed, but if you decide it's easier to > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~arch" than deal with the exceptions, you're asking for > trouble. Wise words. That level of laziness *ON A PRODUCTION SERVER* is unacceptable. Are there any other packages that get updated as often as vanilla sources? Maybe they should be considered for a similar policy. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications