[gentoo-dev] Unstabling a package

[gentoo-dev] Unstabling a package

[Doug Goldstein]

Any specific procedure to unstable a package? Specifically MythTV.
While there's a lot of user interest in the package, there's just not
enough dev help with the package to really keep it up to snuff to what
could be considered stable. Its woefully behind and I'd just be
happier to drop the current stable and bump everything as unstable.

-- 
Doug Goldstein

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unstabling a package

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Any specific procedure to unstable a package? Specifically MythTV.
> While there's a lot of user interest in the package, there's just not
> enough dev help with the package to really keep it up to snuff to what
> could be considered stable. Its woefully behind...

The current unstable package for mythtv was the upstream stable
version only a few weeks ago.  I was contemplating stabilizing it,
although with 0.24.2 out it might make more sense to target that
version.  The current stable version should certainly be removed ASAP
- it contains numerous bugs and some QA issues that have been fixed in
the unstable version.  The only thing the stable version has going for
it is support for more plugins.

If I get a long weekend I might try upgrading to 0.24.2 and getting
that into portage (assuming nobody else beats me to it).
Unfortunately my only mythtv system is essentially a production
system, so I can't really have it down for any length of time.

If we do make mythtv unstable I'd prefer that we not drop versions too
quickly.  If somebody else is able to keep up with the bleeding-edge
versions more power to them, but if the consensus is that the older
versions have to go most likely I'd just start maintaining my own
overlay and abandon the one in portage.  I can really only do a
serious version bump maybe 2-3 times per year at most.

I'm not convinced that going completely unstable is really going to
solve anything, however.  I'd rather have a core of stable
functionality than something bleeding-edge for something like mythtv.
Then again, that might just be personal preference.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: Unstabling a package

[Duncan]

Doug Goldstein posted on Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:46:32 -0600 as excerpted:

> Any specific procedure to unstable a package? Specifically MythTV. While
> there's a lot of user interest in the package, there's just not enough
> dev help with the package to really keep it up to snuff to what could be
> considered stable. Its woefully behind and I'd just be happier to drop
> the current stable and bump everything as unstable.

I'm not a mythtv user and know nothing about its technical side, but 
FWIW, I'd suggest that if this is done, a news item, would be 
appropriate.  And if there's nothing extremely pressing about it, I'd 
suggest a 60- or 90-day instead of a 30-day lead time, because as rich0's 
post suggests, mythtv users in general likely aren't the most update-
happy folks around.

(And FWIW, I'm ~arch by default anyway, so obviously don't have a problem 
with dropping stal^Hble keywording in general.  I understand why people 
want stable but that's what debian stable or redhat/scientific/centos, 
etc, are for.  IMO, cater to our strengths as a rolling release and leave 
the stal^Hble stuff for those with that as a strength.  More time to fix 
issues at decently current upstream stable that way! =:^)  Of course, I 
don't expect that idea to go anywhere in general, but FWIW... and I /am/ 
the one suggesting a news item for those that /are/ stal^Hble, with a 90-
day lead-time, even!)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unstabling a package

[Jeff Horelick]

On 19 February 2012 21:46, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Any specific procedure to unstable a package? Specifically MythTV.
> While there's a lot of user interest in the package, there's just not
> enough dev help with the package to really keep it up to snuff to what
> could be considered stable. Its woefully behind and I'd just be
> happier to drop the current stable and bump everything as unstable.
>
> --
> Doug Goldstein
>

While i'm not willing to maintain mythtv myself (as I don't use it
(anymore)) or join the herd, what about contacting upstream as they
already have their own overlay [1] and see if they'd like to "proxy
maintain" the official Gentoo packages, sort of.

[1] https://github.com/MythTV/packaging/tree/master/Gentoo

JD

Re: [gentoo-dev] Unstabling a package

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Jeff Horelick <jdhore@gentoo.org> wrote:
> While i'm not willing to maintain mythtv myself (as I don't use it
> (anymore)) or join the herd, what about contacting upstream as they
> already have their own overlay [1] and see if they'd like to "proxy
> maintain" the official Gentoo packages, sort of.
>

We do generally coordinate with them, and per my blog I refer users
upstream if they want more bleeding-edge experiences.  The upstream
overlay tends to be ahead in terms of releases, and the official
Gentoo ebuilds tend to be ahead in terms of formal QA compliance and
packaging-related bugs, deps, etc.  We do share, however.  The biggest
difference right now between the two is that the Gentoo ebuilds are no
longer using the eclass until we can get rid of 0.23 and update the
eclass.

I do plan to maintain a stable mythtv branch, whether in portage or in
an overlay regardless.

Rich