[gentoo-dev] unstable/testing keywords

[gentoo-dev] unstable/testing keywords

[Jack Morgan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 842 bytes --]

I find this confusing and hope to clear it up. According to emerge/portage
man pages we have stable keywords (ARCH) and unstable packages (~ARCH) while
the handbook[1] says we have stable keywords (ARCH) and testing keywords
(~ARCH).  I think the handbook is more accurate:

"The testing branch is exactly what it says - Testing. If a package is
in testing, it means that the developers feel that it is functional but
has not been thoroughly tested. You could very well be the first to
discover a bug in the package in which case you could file a bugreport
to let the developers know about it."

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3&chap=3


Thanks,
-- 
Jack Morgan
Pub 4096R/761D8E0A 2010-09-13 Jack Morgan <jmorgan@gentoo.org>>
Fingerprint = DD42 EA48 D701 D520 C2CD 55BE BF53 C69B 761D 8E0A

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] unstable/testing keywords

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Jack Morgan schrieb:
> I find this confusing and hope to clear it up. According to emerge/portage
> man pages we have stable keywords (ARCH) and unstable packages (~ARCH) while
> the handbook[1] says we have stable keywords (ARCH) and testing keywords
> (~ARCH).

There is stable and not stable. Whether you call what is not stable
"unstable" or "testing" does not matter, as Gentoo does not
differentiate between the two. FWIW, I think that using the word testing
implies some sort of path to stable, which is not the case with many
packages. I prefer to say unstable.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] unstable/testing keywords

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 811 bytes --]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:59:37 +0200
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Jack Morgan schrieb:
> > I find this confusing and hope to clear it up. According to
> > emerge/portage man pages we have stable keywords (ARCH) and
> > unstable packages (~ARCH) while the handbook[1] says we have stable
> > keywords (ARCH) and testing keywords (~ARCH).
> 
> There is stable and not stable. Whether you call what is not stable
> "unstable" or "testing" does not matter, as Gentoo does not
> differentiate between the two. FWIW, I think that using the word
> testing implies some sort of path to stable, which is not the case
> with many packages. I prefer to say unstable.

Well it should, because ~arch was supposed to mean "candidate for
becoming arch".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: unstable/testing keywords

[Michael Palimaka]

On 23/09/2013 22:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:59:37 +0200
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Jack Morgan schrieb:
>>> I find this confusing and hope to clear it up. According to
>>> emerge/portage man pages we have stable keywords (ARCH) and
>>> unstable packages (~ARCH) while the handbook[1] says we have stable
>>> keywords (ARCH) and testing keywords (~ARCH).
>>
>> There is stable and not stable. Whether you call what is not stable
>> "unstable" or "testing" does not matter, as Gentoo does not
>> differentiate between the two. FWIW, I think that using the word
>> testing implies some sort of path to stable, which is not the case
>> with many packages. I prefer to say unstable.
>
> Well it should, because ~arch was supposed to mean "candidate for
> becoming arch".
>

I tend to agree. I remember someone one saying something like "if it 
will never be a candidate for stable it doesn't belong in the tree."

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: unstable/testing keywords

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Michael Palimaka schrieb:
> On 23/09/2013 22:03, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>> Well it should, because ~arch was supposed to mean "candidate for
>> becoming arch".
>>
>
> I tend to agree. I remember someone one saying something like "if it
> will never be a candidate for stable it doesn't belong in the tree."
>

There was an extensive discussion about this topic (whether packages
unfit or not intended for stable should enter ~arch, or even the tree)
some time ago, which I don't plan to restart. Suffice to say, consensus
was not reached.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-dev] unstable/testing keywords

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
<chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> There is stable and not stable. Whether you call what is not stable
> "unstable" or "testing" does not matter, as Gentoo does not
> differentiate between the two. FWIW, I think that using the word testing
> implies some sort of path to stable, which is not the case with many
> packages. I prefer to say unstable.

While your reasoning is sound, I think the word "unstable" carries a
negative connotation that isn't really warranted for most of the
testing tree: that something is not stable does not imply that it is
unstable, it only implies that whether it is stable isn't really
known. So I, too, would prefer if we used some other term to describe
the not-stable tree/keyword.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] unstable/testing keywords

[Jack Morgan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1781 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 01:59:37PM +0200, Ch??-Thanh Christopher Nguy???n wrote:
> Jack Morgan schrieb:
> > I find this confusing and hope to clear it up. According to emerge/portage
> > man pages we have stable keywords (ARCH) and unstable packages (~ARCH) while
> > the handbook[1] says we have stable keywords (ARCH) and testing keywords
> > (~ARCH).
> 
> There is stable and not stable. Whether you call what is not stable
> "unstable" or "testing" does not matter, as Gentoo does not
> differentiate between the two. FWIW, I think that using the word testing
> implies some sort of path to stable, which is not the case with many
> packages. I prefer to say unstable.
 
This is not true based on the what the handbook says[1]. If fact this
email thread is about the disconnect in our developer community on what
the difference is between ARCH and ~ARCH. I can't find any documented
details for "unstable keywords" besides the man pages listed above.

From the recent council summary[2], there seems to be some difference in
perspective on its meaning. I can't tell if they in fact the council is 
just talking about keywords or possible talking about "unstable/unsupported
architecture. Perhaps developers think they can be interchangable?

As others have pointed out, "unstable" or even "not stable" wasn't the
intended meaning. If the meaning has warped over time, then it should be
cleared up in a GLEP, handbook corrected, etc. 

 
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3&chap=3
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt


Thanks,
-- 
Jack Morgan
Pub 4096R/761D8E0A 2010-09-13 Jack Morgan <jmorgan@gentoo.org>>
Fingerprint = DD42 EA48 D701 D520 C2CD 55BE BF53 C69B 761D 8E0A

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] unstable/testing keywords

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Jack Morgan wrote:
 
> I can't find any documented details for "unstable keywords" besides
> the man pages listed above.

It is defined in the PMS [1]:

   ~arch: The package version and the ebuild are believed to work and
   do not have any known serious bugs, but more testing is required
   before the package version is considered suitable for obtaining
   a stable keyword. This is referred to as an /unstable keyword/ or
   a /testing keyword./

Ulrich

[1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/5/pms.html#x1-690007.3.2