Quoting Christian Hesse (2025-12-05 07:47:23) > Similar, but I think we need to branch at a different point, between testing > and staging: > > [extra] <- [extra-testing] <- [extra-staging], > ^ > `--- [extra-unstable] > > So order in pacman.conf would be: > > * extra-unstable > * extra-testing > * extra > > > This second layout would most likely need a related branching concept in > > Git and brings up some other questions; e.g., > > Exactly. I think that is our main issue at the moment. This has has to be > solved before we can proceed. > [...] > * With an soname rebuild in -testing the package would have to be rebuilt for > -testing and -unstable. That's why -testing is required: Without it could > work, but may fail with breakage in dynamic linking. > > Did that cover all your questions?
Thanks! For the most part, yes, I think so. Two follow-ups: 1. Are we going to have [extra-unstable-staging] for rebuilds, or do we plan to have a different mechanism to handle soname rebuilds across the new repos? 2. I believe we'll also need some additional constraints to make this work well; e.g., I'm assuming we'd want to ensure that -unstable must always have more recent package versions than -testing and -staging. We may also want to build some of those into devtools as checks. Does that make sense? Best, Lukas
