On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 03:42 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: > Further, while no one has yet proposed anything concrete, people have > been after revamping the profile implementation. Quite likely if/when > this occurs, it's going to require a seperate directory to avoid any > issues with older portage installations accessing it. > Shifting the files now while changes are being made addresses that > concern, and makes things a bit more logical.
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 etc. > 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. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
