On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:25 PM Francesco Riosa <viv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Il giorno mar 5 ott 2021 alle ore 10:31 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> ha > scritto: >> >> Hi, everyone. >> >> I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent >> FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS >> branch of Portage. >> >> Roughly, the idea is that: >> >> - master becomes 3.1.x, and primary development happens there >> >> - 3.0.x becomes the LTS branch and only major bugfixes are backported >> there >> >> As things settle down in the future, master would become 3.2.x, 3.1.x >> would become LTS, 3.0.x will be discontinued and so on. >> >> WDYT? > > > Sorry but portage is too strictly related to the ebuilds in tree, recent > removal of EAPI=5 from most eclasses underlined that. > Or to put id differently if you want a LTS portage you also need a certain > number of "protected" eclasses and ebuilds > It seems a lot of (very appreciated but don't count on me) work
I think this is backwards a bit. The idea is to backport things from the main (development) branch to the LTS branch such that the tree continues to work for both; no? This seems mostly related to "what is a bugfix and will be backported into LTS" and "what is a feature and is not backportable for LTS" in terms of what the tree will rely on. -A > > >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Michał Górny >> >> >>
