On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:14:20PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tuesday 02 November 2004 05:36 pm, Kirk Strauser wrote: > > Out of curiosity, are those ports like to have equivalents in > > Gentoo's "portage" system? > > I just checked and portage has ~8k entries and we have ~12k, > so our problem is a little bit higher scale. > > AFAICT they also adopt changes more slowly than we do? If you mean the transition from a devel port into a stable port, yes. They have all their ports marked as either "stable", "devel", or "broken". For ports to get from "devel" to "stable", it can take quite some time. This has of course to do with the tight couppling of ports and base system. If the author or a program decides that it has reached a "stable" state, this does not mean that the Gentoo port will also be marked stable soon after. In my opinion, it is more wisely to adopt (separate) devel ports only for those projects that are very slow in releasing the next stable version (i.e. the way FreeBSD does it). Or create a devel port some time before the expected release of a new stable branch, to allow smoother transitions (i.e. how it was done with the php port. good work there btw). In my (one) Gentoo installation, I basically run everything as unstable, because the stable versions of a few critical ports i need are very outdated, and I just don't want to wait until everything I need gets tagged stable. Granted however, I did not spend a lot of time thinking about this and trying to figure out what the most clever thing would be to do. cheers, t.Received on Wed Nov 03 2004 - 12:59:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:20 UTC