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?

Thanks,
Fabian

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level