Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting

["Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@gentoo.org>]

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