Re: [gentoo-dev] Package stabilization groups

[Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 11:15 AM Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 16-07-2023 10:57:54 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Many of us have started using `pkgdev bugs` to file stabilization
> > bugs. It works well (Thanks Arthur!) and I encourage everyone to give
> > it a try.
> >
> > Where possible, it files one stabilization bug per package. This makes
> > arch testers' jobs easier and makes the task easier to automate.
> >
> > But sometimes we do want to stabilize packages together. For example
> > major versions of x11-wm/mutter and gnome-base/gnome-shell are tied
> > together. If a new mutter is stabilized without the new gnome-shell,
> > the tree will still be consistent, but emerge -u @world will warn
> > users that the mutter upgrade is blocked.
> >
> > There was some brief discussion on IRC about how to document these
> > groupings, and two main ideas were suggested:
> >
> > - add a field to metadata.xml to specify the group by an arbitrary name.
> >   E.g. <stable-group name="..."/>
> >   Each package in the group would specify the same value of name="..."
> >
> > - maintain the groups in a separate place (similar to portage @sets).
> >
> > Can anyone think of particular advantages or disadvantages to one
> > solution versus the other? Any other (better) ideas?
>
> I don't know how widespread the problem is, and how much it can be
> generalised, but could you perhaps use a virtual, such that
> stabilisation of the virtual means the deps must be satisfied?

Heh, I guess we could do that if we had no other options.