Chris Gianelloni posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:18:58 -0500:
> Remember that the release trees would only be security fixes. No other > package updates should be happening. This would allow for companies to > actually certify their software against "Gentoo 2006.0", for example. Not an unreasonable proposal. I've a couple of comments, however. (Naturally. =8^) 1) AFAIK, most such certification would require nailing down a bit further, including gcc version used to compile, and CFLAGS, among other things. Basically, what they'd then be certifying against would be the GRP releases. This could mean expanding them somewhat, altho it should be fine to build software unrelated to that being certified, and unrelated to the necessary boot environment, from source, without destroying the certification, and that limits the required GRP package count somewhat. 2) I was going to say that without keyword support it might be difficult to nail down the distinction between those running current and those running stable, but I just realized it could/should be right there in the repository and/or profile information, as I'm sure that'll need to be reported in emerge info, once multi-repository gets full support. It /will/ be a bit of extra bug tracking for either devs or bug-wranglers or both, as devs not wanting the work of supporting "stale" packages will, I'm sure, still get bugs assigned that belong to the stable tree only. However, that should be minimal and manageable. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
