Closed cnd closed 10 years ago
Maybe we can put the ebuilds into the tree hardmasked with empty KEYWORDS? And maintain package.unmask/package.keywords/package.use files for 3.11 specifically?
@mrpdaemon
I can see the reason for it when bumping packages will possibly cause some problems for ourselves. But for now I can't see the reason to maintain package.unmask/package.keywords file for working ebuilds. What is the profit?
So it depends on whether we want to have both GNOME 3.10.x (stable) and 3.11.x (development) versions available through the same overlay. If we have ebuilds for both of those versions in the same overlay then we should provide users with a way to choose which one they would like to use. Right now all 3.10.x stuff is marked ~arch, and we have plenty of users of the overlay, so I believe we can keep ~arch for 3.10.x and use empty keywords for 3.11.x. Since it would be quite a hassle to manually unmask all components needed for 3.11.x, it would be convenient to users if we provided a specific package.unmask and package.keywords file for easy unmasking of 3.11.x.
@mrpdaemon well I'm fine with it.
Do we want to place all 3.11.x related ebuild in another overlay or in another branch at least, so this 3.10.x related work can be easier continued and merged to portage some day? I am for separation :-)
I'm fine either way. I think the advantage of having them in the same branch/repo would be that whenever we do a fix to the 3.10.x ebuilds we would also apply the change to the 3.11.x ebuild whenever appropriate. If 3.11.x is on another branch or another repository I think this is less likely to happen.
@ibqn @mrpdaemon master branch always should contain top working versions. I'm fine with creating 3.10 branch if someone will maintain it but he should synchronize all the changes with master branch then because I don't want to remove previous (3.10) version from master.
Please take into consideration that there are people using this overlay just to get GNOME 3.10 stable. Just try not to make their life harder ;-)
@lxnay we will try to keep last stable and unstable versions available. But 3.10.1 was bumped or will be to 3.10.2
@Heather at least until GNOME 3.10 is in portage it would make sense to keep this overlay follow 3.10.x on ~arch. I don't see any downsides to hard masking 3.11.x stuff, especially with proper profile files to easily mass-unmask stuff.
I'd say the natural time to switch 3.11.x into ~arch would be around 3.11.90 or equivalent, where it's more of a release candidate than a development snapshot.
@mrpdaemon well for now probably 3.11.x versions release in the same time as 3.10.x+1 . If we follow upstream then they call 3.10 stable and 3.11 unstable. So I see ideal situation when 3.10 will have stable keywords and 3.11 unstable.
But sure we can't follow it with many reasons but at least because we can't call our 3.10 really stable for now and also it's overlay so it should not provide stable ebuilds.
By the way with masking we should create this mask files templates so we can point team to keep keywords for 3.11 there + add it to readme + maybe to news (iirc it's possible).
We should just create a mask file than to create synced branches which introduce the possibility for errors; and besides that, you add a mask once as opposed to having to sync every time so it spares out some work too. Not much people need 3.11 anyway; so, it should effectively be a win-win situation to just mask it.
http://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/GNOME/teams/releng/3.11.1/versions
MAP: https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/
Also as @mrpdaemon suggested we keep previous (for now 3.10) version in repository to have some kind of stable and development ebuilds here.