From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGbPl-0002X6-49 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:03:29 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8HBv2a6014844; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:57:02 GMT Received: from mail-relay-3.tiscali.it (mail-relay-3.tiscali.it [213.205.33.43]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8HBrhYO027288 for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 11:53:43 GMT Received: from default (84.222.80.202) by mail-relay-3.tiscali.it (7.2.063) id 431C63CC001235D8 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:57:11 +0200 Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:02:12 +0200 X-Mailer: InScribe Message-ID: References: <20050917093456.GC25276@nightcrawler> To: From: "Kevin F. Quinn" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] first council meeting Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e289e630-c7a8-477f-be0d-cd91feb17ce5 X-Archives-Hash: 20cc6b20a3f7add5c93badda39fb09e0 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