From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_REJECT, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mail.huneycuttfamily.org (c-24-98-65-184.atl.client2.attbi.com [24.98.65.184]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79A2ABD68 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 00:28:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from acm.org (goliath [192.168.1.2]) by mail.huneycuttfamily.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CD55A1B9D for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 01:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D3E3B0D.4000804@acm.org> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 01:28:45 -0400 From: "Chad M. Huneycutt" Reply-To: chadh@gentoo.org Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020719 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] stable and unstable branches. References: <3D3DB74A.1000802@fastwebnet.it> <5.1.0.14.0.20020723231904.02108760@pop3.norton.antivirus> <20020724063223.25c7e7d1.smiler@lanil.mine.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: f0c500dc-0502-46bb-934f-d35edf4037a5 X-Archives-Hash: d42b5709f7639489a3367e2db174ce72 Christian Axelsson wrote: > How about mask the "unstable" ebuilds in the stable distribution? > That provides a simple solution for the Debian problem. If you want that > new bleeding edge ebuild, just unmask it on your own risk. It will probably > just be as stable as it is today. > But to talk against myself on this: KEYWORDS will let us do this alot more effectively. The way they work is that an ebuild will have KEYWORDS="unstable" to indicate that an ebuild needs to be tested before it can be called "stable". A user can list which keywords they will accept, so if you accept "unstable" packages, then those will be available to you. This is a rough description of how they will work. We still have some details to work out, and I don't have the full picture yet, but expect an announcement soon. We are also using this functionality to support the alternative architectures. Chad