Dear Alan, thanks a lot for the many nice pointers! Below more:
On 20.02.2017 03:32, Alan W. Irwin wrote: > On 2017-02-19 23:08+0100 Mario Emmenlauer wrote: > >> >> Dear MSYS2 users / developers, >> >> I've start working towards a "stable" repository and would like suggestions! >> Please comment! > > For example, Debian (the only distro I have used since 2000) has two > rolling releases (called "unstable", and "testing"), see > <https://www.debian.org/releases/>. A given package gets promoted from > "unstable" to "testing" only if that package and _all_ its package > dependencies pass certain criteria (such as a successful build and for > a fixed time interval after that build a lack of critical bug reports > from users). That automated promotion system is so effective and > breakage so rare on "testing" that most Debian desktop users tend to > use the testing repository for Debian. (Debian stable is another > story: it is a fixed-release repository that tends to be quite stable, > but it is based on a very old testing snapshot which is why Debian > desktop users in need of the latest desktop features tend to avoid > it.) I very much like this suggestion. In Debian-terminology, I think my current effort would not yet qualify for "testing", since I currently incorporate neither user feedback nor any actual testing beyond the question "does it compile". However, since I envision to integrate user feedback in a fashion as you suggest below, I would like to adopt the name "testing", at least until somebody proposes something better. For the sake of this email conversation, I might still refer to the term "stable" since I used it in my original subject, but the actual releases should be termed "testing". > I haven't used ArchLinux, but it is an interesting distro from the > MinGW-w64/MSYS2 perspective because pacman (before being ported for > use by MinGW-w64/MSYS2) was originally developed for ArchLinux. The > repositories for that free software distro are summarized at > <https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/official_repositories>. From > the description there, ArchLinux historically struggled with the > packaging stability issue, but eventually resolved it by splitting the > packages into various categories like core (a limited number of > essential packages which have stringent stability requirements) and > extra (with less stringent stability requirements). All ArchLinux > repositories are rolling releases so they have nothing equivalent to > Debian stable, but my guess is core + extra have stability that is > roughly equivalent to Debian "testing" (i.e., very good), and the > ArchLinux "testing" versions of core and extra have stability roughly > equivalent to Debian "unstable" and the current MinGW-w64/MSYS2 (i.e., > mostly adequate but sometimes broken). This might be a very good idea. For my current effort it is still too far-fetched because I want to provide something useful as soon as possible. But I can clearly see "categories" as a goal for a second milestone, and this can immensely reduce the pressure on overall release quality. I think users may accept an issue in a rarely used downstream package much more easily than an issue in the core tool- chain. > Developing a mostly automated system similar to Debian's for promoting > current MinGW-w64/MSYS2 packages to a more stable rolling release > version of MinGW-w64/MSYS2 might take quite an effort to implement, > but in the long run that might be less work than following a system > similar to the apparent subjective one that ArchLinux has for > promoting packages in its testing repository to core or extra. So, for > example, you might go with non-automated/subjective to start and then > automate it later, but, of course, as the implementer such choices are > up to you. > > Anyhow, good luck with this potentially valuable project, and I hope > the URL's I found above concerning the various choices made by other > distros concerning package stability will be of some help to you. Thanks to you, and please keep the comments/suggestions coming! :) All the best, Mario Emmenlauer -- BioDataAnalysis GmbH, Mario Emmenlauer Tel. Buero: +49-89-74677203 Balanstr. 43 mailto: memmenlauer * biodataanalysis.de D-81669 München http://www.biodataanalysis.de/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Msys2-users mailing list Msys2-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/msys2-users
