From: Blake Watters <sbw@metalab.unc.edu>
To: Dan Naumov <jago@telefragged.com>
Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Very bad ebuild-writing practice.
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:40:33 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208171436090.17134-100000@tribal.metalab.unc.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020817194846.4204ba76.jago@telefragged.com>
Wouldn't it seem most reasonable for the ebuild author to create
snapshots, test them, and have those snapshots merged into Portage? Then
the package can be repackaged at a later date, tested again and released.
This also allows you to use the date as the version number, bypassing any
problems with the naming conventions.
I agree that hourly build releases should not make it into the portage
tree unmasked. Perhaps masking such packages or creating an experimental
organizational unit under portage for such packages to live would be
advantageous.
Blake
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Dan Naumov wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:30:37 -0700
> Jeremiah Mahler <jmahler@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > But suppose someone did want an ebuild for the hourly CVS snapshots?
> > How should it be named?
>
> My personal belief is that ebuilds of hourly CVS snapshots should never leave the PORTDIR_OVERLAY of the original author. IMHO, Gentoo Portage is no place for autogenerated, untested CVS stuff. How are you going to go around non-compiling snapshots of broken trees and new compile options that appear from time to timw anyways ?
>
> Ebuilds should be writted for things that are "set in stone" and don't go around changing on an hourly basis. You really don't want to have 2 users run "emerge blah" and get different versions of the same program, even though "emerge -u rsync" was run at the same time. This would be a horrible mess (which is currently the case with QuakeForge ebuild).
>
> Sincerely,
> Dan Naumov aka Jago
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-17 18:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-17 16:09 [gentoo-dev] Very bad ebuild-writing practice Dan Naumov
2002-08-17 16:30 ` Jeremiah Mahler
2002-08-17 16:48 ` Dan Naumov
2002-08-17 18:40 ` Blake Watters [this message]
2002-08-17 18:52 ` mike
2002-08-18 15:44 ` Alexander Gretencord
2002-08-19 4:40 ` Troy Dack
2002-08-19 5:30 ` [gentoo-dev] " Paul
2002-08-17 16:50 ` [gentoo-dev] " Bart Verwilst
2002-08-17 17:03 ` Dan Naumov
2002-08-17 18:12 ` mike
2002-08-17 18:32 ` Dan Naumov
2002-08-19 1:13 ` Charles Lacour
2002-08-19 20:04 ` Paul de Vrieze
2002-08-17 19:13 ` Jose Alberto Suarez Lopez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.44.0208171436090.17134-100000@tribal.metalab.unc.edu \
--to=sbw@metalab.unc.edu \
--cc=gentoo-dev@gentoo.org \
--cc=jago@telefragged.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox