* Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting
@ 2005-09-17 12:02 99% ` Kevin F. Quinn
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Kevin F. Quinn @ 2005-09-17 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 17/9/2005 11:34:56, Brian Harring (ferringb@gentoo.org) wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 11:28:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > The 30-day could be calculated from the $Header: of ebuilds that have
> > no UNSTABLE, or where it's empty.
>
> Doesn't work for N arches keywording, or ebuild dev doing minor
> syntax touch ups.
Good point. The minor touch-up issue could be resolved by setting
the string to the date the last issue was cleared instead of deleting
it:
UNSTABLE="2005/10/04"
but to handle N arches needs a different approach (the 'maint' keyword
idea also falls down here).
My favourite idea so far is mike's '?arch' on the understanding that
we have:
package.mask - 'alpha'
Not suitable for mainstream testing
?arch - 'beta'
Works on maintainers systems, worth testing
Maintainer may not have tried it on arch.
~arch - 'release candidate'
Maintainer & arch team happy that it's a good candidate for arch
30-day maturity phase, arch testing in progress
arch - 'released'
Arch team happy it's stable
In particular it's worth noting that marking ?arch is not restricted
the way marking ~arch is. Over time I expect the x86 arch team to
impose more rigour on the use of ~x86, so that it behaves similarly
to the other arches.
In general, it would make sense for people to have arch or ~arch in
make.conf, and use package.keywords to grab stuff from ?arch in a
controlled fashion.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2005-09-17 9:34 [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Brian Harring
2005-09-17 12:02 99% ` Kevin F. Quinn
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox