From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D01AC139694 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 20:23:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FF9BE0DA2; Sat, 6 May 2017 20:23:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31FE2E0DA0 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 20:23:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79AD333FE7D; Sat, 6 May 2017 20:23:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1494102181.1343.1.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] arches.desc & GLEP 72 (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Items for Council Agenda, May 14) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 22:23:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2792793.3ddXxQ3v2e@pinacolada> References: <0ac908a7-9875-f629-fa0c-0c85945e1185@gentoo.org> <2845173.ZUnlo4BlrU@pinacolada> <1494088508.26467.1.camel@gentoo.org> <2792793.3ddXxQ3v2e@pinacolada> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-tl5HAJ9grTIs1NzPknnv" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: bb479c2e-3fb0-40b6-b390-e519f025044c X-Archives-Hash: 995e689cfda8092b6b378a370c9e846b --=-tl5HAJ9grTIs1NzPknnv Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On sob, 2017-05-06 at 19:36 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Samstag, 6. Mai 2017, 18:35:08 CEST schrieb Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny: > >=20 > > > An implementation is still missing though. > >=20 > > ...and a rationale section to describe why you did the things this way. >=20 > Well, that's more or less the Motivation section. Should I rename it? No. Motivation answers the question 'what is the problem being solved?', and in your case it serves that purpose well. Rationale is 'why did I choose this specific solution?' -- e.g. choice of file format, keywords and basically answers to every useful question that has been raised. > > 2. I can't say I like using magical keywords like 'testing' > > and 'unstable'; they're going to be confusing long-term (compare: > > the mess with stable/exp/dev for profiles). But I don't have a very goo= d > > idea how to it better right now. >=20 > Well, I pulled the two terms that are tradidionally used for ~arch...=20 > "testing" and "unstable". Testing implied to me that a transition is taki= ng=20 > place, so that went to the "mixed state".=20 I should point out that those terms are frequently used interchangeably, and adding disjoint meanings to them is least misleading. Perhaps a name like 'transitional' for the middle state would be better? > There's also Kent's proposal where some more indirection is introduced (s= ee=20 > the discussion threads). It more or less achives the same with even more= =20 > flexibility. I dont like it so much because I want to keep things simple. Yes, we don't need yet another python.eclass. > > 3. What is the use case for 'broken'? Are we ever going to use that? >=20 > None that I know of. I only added it because it was suggested on the list= (and=20 > because it's simple to define and implement). Well, I was mostly asking because: a. without that, there would be no reason to repeat that dev/exp repoman magic in all three definitions, b. I fail to see any reason to have stable/exp/dev profile split for arch where even the most basic package integrity is not guaranteed. It's like having repoman check the profiles for nothing... --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-tl5HAJ9grTIs1NzPknnv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAABCgB9FiEEXr8g+Zb7PCLMb8pAur8dX/jIEQoFAlkOMKVfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDVF QkYyMEY5OTZGQjNDMjJDQzZGQ0E0MEJBQkYxRDVGRjhDODExMEEACgkQur8dX/jI EQowZg//Y8MmlPZWjqLkWMCgfgB8a/+Svl+lp4umR0mCknkuOGP+YCThQo1WW/59 Nm0hjNCi1PrwOee7kYMBm7R8p4tBg4+W71KpIa9TPzg6n24pDJGLvPnUZBLfXbFQ 0g/q4wBw+iIEQTE/e+6cl8CUDPD3/xnJnOgJCn7dZ7pZeWMTILt+9Wrss5HwboEp FDXPGQkM3SZHFuLHTsBHG/8N6nX1Ld71nasYLDw6CXLZ20UYScPrzbK06P/cJWE5 Ny5wFeHmcpEgjdY0tsESZ3GOoDDlzQUzDoor+7lzTpn26b4Tv9vwPQ635RN2ugvo LIsDhOTSkxq7vmXK8ZFq3S2VKxvWOzLALj2qiOPC+RIa/bwQy+zcPM0nMFqvpsUj MKg6yKjjkzNEKyuy/FPKCZytKuNP8mKOiK6jqDQikpTeWWoQ8E4VwyZaQ8o+NKab DrDHTDHfSfZ2QbTTMw3Sa4ZpGvaLHYaA2BDHF6niG6Ht7ykkM7N6IkWkPOqNTl6A XDPdv+nvFYK9enPIEULJ5j1EmsaM5oj1vINOmAywetUN+X3f5vlaTJ9oPb/7F/Xp n0DD16N31VocXgwkbWrPIXeNBDNi5TJ9mdGbC6AuPyxKi0we8mwwdt1dF70m+izO WxxpDkev5chokCp0ATXkwuo5Dg7IZ6zkZuzWTf7BOHPOZBFKlaE= =i4PS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-tl5HAJ9grTIs1NzPknnv--