On 17/9/2005 11:34:56, Brian Harring ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 11:28:03AM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > The 30-day could be calculated from the $Header: of ebuilds that have > > no UNSTABLE, or where it's empty. > > Doesn't work for N arches keywording, or ebuild dev doing minor > syntax touch ups.
Good point. The minor touch-up issue could be resolved by setting the string to the date the last issue was cleared instead of deleting it: UNSTABLE="2005/10/04" but to handle N arches needs a different approach (the 'maint' keyword idea also falls down here). My favourite idea so far is mike's '?arch' on the understanding that we have: package.mask - 'alpha' Not suitable for mainstream testing ?arch - 'beta' Works on maintainers systems, worth testing Maintainer may not have tried it on arch. ~arch - 'release candidate' Maintainer & arch team happy that it's a good candidate for arch 30-day maturity phase, arch testing in progress arch - 'released' Arch team happy it's stable In particular it's worth noting that marking ?arch is not restricted the way marking ~arch is. Over time I expect the x86 arch team to impose more rigour on the use of ~x86, so that it behaves similarly to the other arches. In general, it would make sense for people to have arch or ~arch in make.conf, and use package.keywords to grab stuff from ?arch in a controlled fashion. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
