Jun 17, 2008, 1:20 AM
Post #53 of 53
(108 views)
Permalink
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> Now, how can we do this? Could we start changing the profiles right now?
>
> Considering we already have a 2.0.0 ebuild, we do the following:
>
> - Mask >=2.0.0-r9 (this allows for security bumps, if necessary, number
> can be adjusted)
> - Copy 2.0.0 to 2.0.0-r9
> - When we make a new 2007.1 profile, don't mask >=2.0.0-r9
> - Stable 2.0.0-r9 in the 2007.1 snapshot and mark it stable in the tree
> with the release
> - ???
> - Profit!
>
>> Should this be brought to the next council meeting?
>
> Is that really necessary? What can the Council do that we cannot agree
> upon here as civil adults? I think we can agree to do this ourselves.
> I can definitely agree to it from a Release Engineering standpoint. It
> would work quite well and is beneficial to our users.
>
++
>> Chris, I could write a small paragraph for whatever GWN explaining what
>> stable and unstable users will have to do if you want.
>
> Sure. However, if we did follow my draft plan above, there would be no
> need. Users running ~arch have probably hit this already by now, so I
> don't think we would be informing too many people. That being said, it
> would make a cool article. Even if just to show that, yes, we really do
> care for our users and think about ways to reduce the impact on their
> systems.
>
Personally I found the outline above about how such a tree-wide change is
implemented to be fascinating technically, so I think an article is a great
idea, especially if that could be fleshed out to cover metadata format
changes and the like. I have no idea exactly what other types of changes
would require such a move, but I'd love to read about them.
A 90% revdep-rebuild would definitely tempt me to reinstall tho :)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
signature.asc (0.25 KB)