On Tuesday 03 February 2004 15:19, Kurt Lieber wrote: > > I think you may be confusing the snapshot we make for GRP packages > with the proposed stable tree. There are no plans to offer GRP > packages of the stable tree. > > Not to say we can't/won't do it, but it's not included as part of this > GLEP. Again, if the QA folks want to leverage this tree and provide > additional QA efforts around it, that's great. That's not the primary > target of this GLEP, however.
I think that such a fixed tree is particularly suited for binary packages. It will not have some of the problems that normal GRP has. On the QA point, I believe that there is not much point into making a fixed try without looking at QA. About the keywords issue, I expect ebuild maintainers to put an effort into actually trying to get one ebuild version for all archs that support the package. For this reason I prefer to have a separate (temporary) staging area where one can copy candidate ebuilds and their auxiliary files to. This area can then be reviewed by the arch people to judge the stability. At some point then the ebuilds would be put into a fixed tree. This idea actually will not use branching (as cvs does not support copying files) Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp00000.pgp
Description: signature
