Mailing List Archive

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Oct 7, 2005, at 2:11 AM, Grobian wrote:

> Gang,
>
> Because I don't have any experience or knowledge about sci-biology,
> I hope I can count on someone else to cope with the 5 stable
> requests in sci-biology (bugs 10833{2,3,4,5,7}). They basically
> only ask us to bump the stable keyword.

Absolutely. I've more or less taken care of sci-biology on ppc-macos
since I became a dev. I'm hesistant since I'm not sure what we agreed
upon for stabling packages. Are we going to continue to support
stable, but only stable things when requested to? What are we doing
in the overlay and what are we doing in the main portage tree now?

Sorry if I somehow missed an e-mail detailing this; I've been swamped
with real life (read: interviews --- I'm graduating this May) lately.

- --Lina Pezzella
Gentoo Developer



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFDRuUYNJ9STR9DbYERAhcPAKDEAuJM/ofFugQ2quttVF7e67J/NgCg02TY
Z5ZtW3squzGu+Cp/LJL647w=
=o9ff
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

>> sci-biology (bugs 10833{2,3,4,5,7}). They basically only ask us to
>> bump the stable keyword.
>
> Absolutely. I've more or less taken care of sci-biology on ppc-macos
> since I became a dev. I'm hesistant since I'm not sure what we agreed
> upon for stabling packages. Are we going to continue to support stable,
> but only stable things when requested to? What are we doing in the
> overlay and what are we doing in the main portage tree now?

Because an older package is stable, we are somehow forced to continue
stabling newer packages if requested either via a stabling request or
security issue. In the first case we have to stable to allow older
ebuilds to be cleaned up, in the second we have to table in order to
take advantage of the security advisory.
See the "Ruby issue" email for how to deal with packages that obviously
noone knows what to do with.

> Sorry if I somehow missed an e-mail detailing this;

You haven't, it was in my initial proposal. You trigger me to put this
somewhere on the web for reference.

> I've been swamped
> with real life (read: interviews --- I'm graduating this May) lately.

Ah :) Good luck. I'd be pleased if you could take the time (somewhere
this weekend perhaps?) to look into the bugs and stable the versions
they ask for.

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote:

> Because an older package is stable, we are somehow forced to continue
> stabling newer packages if requested either via a stabling request or
> security issue. In the first case we have to stable to allow older
> ebuilds to be cleaned up, in the second we have to table in order to
> take advantage of the security advisory. See the "Ruby issue" email for
> how to deal with packages that obviously noone knows what to do with.
>
> > Sorry if I somehow missed an e-mail detailing this;
>
> You haven't, it was in my initial proposal. You trigger me to put this
> somewhere on the web for reference.

I think you are referring to this proposal?

"I propose to keep the following keywording rules for whatever we do from
now:
1) only keyword new packages ~ppc-macos; don't stable them after a month
2) only stable new ebuilds if this is required by security stuff and we
have an older ebuild that is stable"

Maybe you can add,

3) if need be, a non-system package may be stabled, even if it has
collisions.

and then add autoconf-2.59 to the Panther base system for the progressive
profile, and mask ruby from the Panther conservative profile.

-f
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Finn Thain wrote:
> Maybe you can add,
>
> 3) if need be, a non-system package may be stabled, even if it has
> collisions.
>
> and then add autoconf-2.59 to the Panther base system for the progressive
> profile, and mask ruby from the Panther conservative profile.

In theory a good solution, IMHO, if not the most correct one, however, I
do not run progressive, and noone in the team (that I know of) does, so
it's unmaintainable for me. Hence I rather think twice before I stable
autoconf on ppc-macos.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Grobian wrote:
> Because I don't have any experience or knowledge about sci-biology, I
> hope I can count on someone else to cope with the 5 stable requests in
> sci-biology (bugs 10833{2,3,4,5,7}). They basically only ask us to bump
> the stable keyword.

Should these packages follow the Ruby model and have their stable
keyword dropped? This aligns them with our current policy.
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> Grobian wrote:
>> Because I don't have any experience or knowledge about sci-biology, I
>> hope I can count on someone else to cope with the 5 stable requests in
>> sci-biology (bugs 10833{2,3,4,5,7}). They basically only ask us to
>> bump the stable keyword.
>
> Should these packages follow the Ruby model and have their stable
> keyword dropped? This aligns them with our current policy.

I think Lina knows how to test them, and hence is able to keyword them
stable as appropriate.

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list