Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ulrich Mueller wrote: So, only this reply. May I conclude that nobody objects to the above? Ulrich Wearing only my perl team hat, it would seem to lowly me that if a virtual points to packages foo and bar, and both foo and bar were tested and marked stable by the arch's previously, that its silly to then wait for them to mark the virtual stable as well, since at least in my perception the only function of that virtual is to say use one of these packages - which have already been marked stable. /me hopes some arch brains step in, like weeve in particular, who is usually far more eloquent at defending an arch's position - -- - -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E - -o()o-- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGXpVDq1ztTp5/Ti4RAn3fAJ93fLU/G2QOB5p6jeGQst4lnyXEWgCfeuPg kQDUKObUWKYcIWndm6zGm6U= =beGq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Cummings wrote: Ulrich Mueller wrote: So, only this reply. May I conclude that nobody objects to the above? Ulrich Wearing only my perl team hat, it would seem to lowly me that if a virtual points to packages foo and bar, and both foo and bar were tested and marked stable by the arch's previously, that its silly to then wait for them to mark the virtual stable as well, since at least in my perception the only function of that virtual is to say use one of these packages - which have already been marked stable. /me hopes some arch brains step in, like weeve in particular, who is usually far more eloquent at defending an arch's position Michael, for a virtual pointing to packages foo and bar, only one of them needs to be stable before the virtual can be marked as stable, right? So your above comment should read if a virtual points to packages foo and bar, and [either foo or bar was] tested and marked stable by the arch's previously, that its silly to then wait for them to mark the virtual stable as well, right? - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Proctors -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGXs9kcAWygvVEyAIRAnoUAJ4iQc4qhyn8Yehuvs2w5AHknU2crgCfVvCx PWibZvOya/nyGDZDi72rwLs= =YAH2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable
On Thu, 31 May 2007 05:28:35 -0400 Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ulrich Mueller wrote: So, only this reply. May I conclude that nobody objects to the above? I think marking virtuals is OK. If you cannot mark them because some DEPENDs have not been marked (stable) for some arch, you couldn't do it anyway (while at the same time getting past repoman) and would have to file a keywording bug. I think I should probably review this stance at the earliest when virtuals threaten to become more than containers for DEPENDs. Wearing only my perl team hat, it would seem to lowly me that if a virtual points to packages foo and bar, and both foo and bar were tested and marked stable by the arch's previously, that its silly to then wait for them to mark the virtual stable as well, since at least in my perception the only function of that virtual is to say use one of these packages - which have already been marked stable. I have seen many Perl virtuals go straight to stable and haven't ever experienced any adverse effects. :) /me hopes some arch brains step in, like weeve in particular, who is usually far more eloquent at defending an arch's position Oh sorry. :) Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for a virtual pointing to packages foo and bar, only one of them needs to be stable before the virtual can be marked as stable, right? So your above comment should read if a virtual points to packages foo and bar, and [either foo or bar was] tested and marked stable by the arch's previously, that its silly to then wait for them to mark the virtual stable as well, right? At first sight what you say sounds right, but further thought shows that both foo and bar would have to be marked stable before the virtual could be. Take the instance that the appropriate version of foo is marked stable but that for bar is still in ~arch. If someone has foo installed then upgrading the virtual will pull in the new (stable) foo and all is well. However if someone else has bar installed but not foo, then the upgrade to the virtual will not cause bar to be upgraded (as it is still masked ~arch) but will cause the upgraded foo to be installed (as a new package) to satisfy the virtual. Or have I (as a mere user) misunderstood the concepts of virtuals? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeroen Roovers wrote: I have seen many Perl virtuals go straight to stable and haven't ever experienced any adverse effects. :) well, that's the idea :) But like I think it was Graham said in another subthread of this, perl team's virtuals only go to stable if both (in our case, there are usually only 2 possible sources for fulfillment) deps are already stable, so really all you're doing is updating a pointer reference. um. can i be more confusing? let's find out! /me hopes some arch brains step in, like weeve in particular, who is usually far more eloquent at defending an arch's position Oh sorry. :) bah - that was me failing to finish the sentence that in my head concluded as than me. That and softserve machines aside, weeve and gustovoz are pretty (in a positive sense) vocal about arch related items, so they were the ones that came to mind when i threw in the comment about arch's commenting. Double bah. I think i've dug a good hole here. Let me get in it. - -- - -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E - -o()o-- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGXvLHq1ztTp5/Ti4RAtf/AKCLWpCWcsD+m8njHSdfWltt+owQ1gCfaV2P S4o2MhHNJFs2gv2oN6yms/A= =sj0h -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote: Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ulrich Mueller kirjoitti: The point of my question was more if the usual rules apply, i.e.: keywording and stabilising only by arch teams; wait one month before the package can go stable. The month is not set in stone. About who marks them, it's probably best to get the opinion of the arch teams. I don't think they will object to normal developers marking them. Arch teams: what do you think? Speaking for x86/amd64 and Emacs...I am ok with that. :) So, only this reply. May I conclude that nobody objects to the above? Ulrich -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Marking virtuals stable
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The month is not set in stone. About who marks them, it's probably best to get the opinion of the arch teams. I don't think they will object to normal developers marking them. Arch teams: what do you think? Speaking for x86/amd64 and Emacs...I am ok with that. :) V-Li -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
