Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] LTS branch of Portage
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:25 PM Francesco Riosa wrote: > > > Il giorno mar 5 ott 2021 alle ore 10:31 Michał Górny 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 >> >> >>
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moving more architectures to ~arch only
On 2021-10-18 19:07, Michał Górny wrote: Security team arbitrarily deciding that an architecture is unsupported while otherwise it's supported in Gentoo doesn't change anything. Sure, you can close bugs and pretend that a problem doesn't exist... except that you can't if you can't remove the old version because of keywords. You won't see me defending the idea of allowing stable architectures without security support (this was before I joined Gentoo and I never liked it). But this is what we have for more than 10 years now. However, this was never an arbitrary decision. It was something between arch teams and security project but in the end it was always the arch team's decision because they are the ones doing the work (like "Sorry, we cannot keep up..." -"Well, that's bad but now we have to deal with that"). Anyway, I think we are losing focus on topic. I am still waiting for Marecki to answer the motivation behind this. And to quote you: Sure, you can close bugs and pretend that a problem doesn't exist Sadly, you can say the same for dropping stable keywords (and I think we are not that far away if I understand [1] correctly), not? That's why I asked for the motivation behind this and what people are expecting to become better/what problem will be solved after that change. We haven't yet talked about the risk of broken deptrees because some tooling will ignore non-stable architectures by default. [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a3c7a6cb7596a5ff9102e4d819a52d9c -- Regards, Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
