On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 11:15 AM Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 16-07-2023 10:57:54 -0400, Matt Turner wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Many of us have started using `pkgdev bugs` to file stabilization > > bugs. It works well (Thanks Arthur!) and I encourage everyone to give > > it a try. > > > > Where possible, it files one stabilization bug per package. This makes > > arch testers' jobs easier and makes the task easier to automate. > > > > But sometimes we do want to stabilize packages together. For example > > major versions of x11-wm/mutter and gnome-base/gnome-shell are tied > > together. If a new mutter is stabilized without the new gnome-shell, > > the tree will still be consistent, but emerge -u @world will warn > > users that the mutter upgrade is blocked. > > > > There was some brief discussion on IRC about how to document these > > groupings, and two main ideas were suggested: > > > > - add a field to metadata.xml to specify the group by an arbitrary name. > > E.g. <stable-group name="..."/> > > Each package in the group would specify the same value of name="..." > > > > - maintain the groups in a separate place (similar to portage @sets). > > > > Can anyone think of particular advantages or disadvantages to one > > solution versus the other? Any other (better) ideas? > > I don't know how widespread the problem is, and how much it can be > generalised, but could you perhaps use a virtual, such that > stabilisation of the virtual means the deps must be satisfied?
Heh, I guess we could do that if we had no other options.
