On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:27:34PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > This could still be done under profiles. Personally, I like the idea of > something more like this: > > project/os/arch/version for profiles > > This would give us something like this: > > default/linux/x86/2006.0 > default/freebsd/alpha/2006.0 > hardened/linux/amd64/2006.0/2.4 > hardened/freebsd/x86/2006.0 > uclibc/linux/mips/2006.0/cobalt > server/linux/x86/2006.0
I like... That's pretty much what I'm aiming for; not after forcing *you* to do server/etc, just would prefer to see it structured so that others can do so. That said, initial email was worded a bit strongly, so pardon ;) > > Two scenarios for how this will result in visible issues for people- > > 1) CVS users, aka, devs. Devs *should* be running latest portage, > > which would know about the shift. If they're running an older > > portage version and aren't willing to upgrade, they tag the > > symlinks themselves. It's a minor annoyance frankly; assuming they > > read -dev (like they're suppossed to :P ), they'll know in advance > > it's coming. > > Many devs use the latest stable versions of packages rather than testing > versions. I tend to find this to be a good thing as there are often > bugs in particular combinations of package versions that aren't > necessarily spotted when running all ~arch. > > Also, devs are not required to read or even be subscribed to -dev. Agreed. Implicit in all this is that I'm going to have to make a bit of noise (and probably attempt and get it shoved out via gwn) prior to doing it, so that I don't have ~100 devs who didn't hear the news looking in my direction. ~harring
pgplt9NvIQa2x.pgp
Description: PGP signature
