[opensuse-gnome] GNOME:Factory / GNOME:Factory:Next / GNOME:Stable / GNOME:Unstable etc etc
Hello, Just a quick note that we need to discuss our repos... We have been updating latest GNOME in GNOME:Factory:Next (G:F:N) for a while now. We need to merge these changes into GNOME:Factory (G:F). My questions; 1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3 2. For each GNOME . release (2.25.4, 2.25.5 etc), should we do a complete update in G:F:N and then later merge them to G:F (Makes it possible to use G:F as a 'stable development' branch) 3. Should we not do 2 and instead move G:F:N to GNOME:Unstable (again, I think we have G:U and again, perhaps we want to start from scratch) Other questions I forgot? Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 08:05 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
Hello,
Just a quick note that we need to discuss our repos...
We have been updating latest GNOME in GNOME:Factory:Next (G:F:N) for a while now. We need to merge these changes into GNOME:Factory (G:F).
My questions;
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3
might be a good idea, I guess
2. For each GNOME . release (2.25.4, 2.25.5 etc), should we do a complete update in G:F:N and then later merge them to G:F (Makes it possible to use G:F as a 'stable development' branch)
I think G:F:N is good for doing the 1st mass update for a new version, so that we don't break G:F, but once we have the unstable in G:F, I guess we can just update there, and have G:F:N be just a link to G:F, so that packages get built for 11.1
3. Should we not do 2 and instead move G:F:N to GNOME:Unstable (again, I think we have G:U and again, perhaps we want to start from scratch)
G:U is mostly dead, so the question is just if we want to rename G:F:N
to G:U.
I guess we could play with linkpac to have G:U and G:S always point to
the correct unstable/stable versions. For instance, G:S could just be a
link to openSUSE:11.1 now, and we can, as you say, provide a 2.24.3
update there. And G:U, once we move everything to G:F, can just point to
G:F
--
Rodrigo Moya
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:23 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 08:05 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
Hello,
Just a quick note that we need to discuss our repos...
We have been updating latest GNOME in GNOME:Factory:Next (G:F:N) for a while now. We need to merge these changes into GNOME:Factory (G:F).
My questions;
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3
might be a good idea, I guess
2. For each GNOME . release (2.25.4, 2.25.5 etc), should we do a complete update in G:F:N and then later merge them to G:F (Makes it possible to use G:F as a 'stable development' branch)
I think G:F:N is good for doing the 1st mass update for a new version, so that we don't break G:F, but once we have the unstable in G:F, I guess we can just update there, and have G:F:N be just a link to G:F, so that packages get built for 11.1
G:F already builds for 11.1 so no need to keep G:F:N around for that. I still think it'd be a good idea to do the updates in G:U and then merge with G:F as it would allow us to create LiveCD's after each dot release from G:F. Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:23 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 08:05 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
Hello,
Just a quick note that we need to discuss our repos...
We have been updating latest GNOME in GNOME:Factory:Next (G:F:N) for a while now. We need to merge these changes into GNOME:Factory (G:F).
My questions;
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3
might be a good idea, I guess
Yes having a G:S makes sense, it's easy to update and might contain some important bugfixes. Also integrate some fixes would be interesting, since it should be faster to get things done
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Magnus Boman
2. For each GNOME . release (2.25.4, 2.25.5 etc), should we do a complete update in G:F:N and then later merge them to G:F (Makes it possible to use G:F as a 'stable development' branch)
I think G:F:N is good for doing the 1st mass update for a new version, so that we don't break G:F, but once we have the unstable in G:F, I guess we can just update there, and have G:F:N be just a link to G:F, so that packages get built for 11.1
G:F already builds for 11.1 so no need to keep G:F:N around for that. I still think it'd be a good idea to do the updates in G:U and then merge with G:F as it would allow us to create LiveCD's after each dot release from G:F.
I agree with this too, it's another good way to have more packaging quality. Luis -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:23 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3
might be a good idea, I guess
+1
2. For each GNOME . release (2.25.4, 2.25.5 etc), should we do a complete update in G:F:N and then later merge them to G:F (Makes it possible to use G:F as a 'stable development' branch)
I think G:F:N is good for doing the 1st mass update for a new version, so that we don't break G:F, but once we have the unstable in G:F, I guess we can just update there, and have G:F:N be just a link to G:F, so that packages get built for 11.1
Most packages submitted to G:F:N are typically built once in a personal repo somewhere (I hope :-) ). So there probably is no need for G:F:N to be a test bed for the next update to G:F.
3. Should we not do 2 and instead move G:F:N to GNOME:Unstable (again, I think we have G:U and again, perhaps we want to start from scratch)
G:U is mostly dead, so the question is just if we want to rename G:F:N to G:U.
true :-) -Suman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:12 +0530, Suman Manjunath wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:23 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3
might be a good idea, I guess
+1
Ok, so remaining questions are, do we use copypac or links? Using links will put some maintenance burden on the project beyond just having the latest stable GNOME release, since packages will break every now and again when patches are created for 11.1/GNOME components. Also, is G:S enough, or should we have a sub-project called G:S:2.24? I mean, what will happen once 2.26 is released? Wipe G:C and start over, or, by using subprojects, create G:C:2.26
2. For each GNOME . release (2.25.4, 2.25.5 etc), should we do a complete update in G:F:N and then later merge them to G:F (Makes it possible to use G:F as a 'stable development' branch)
I think G:F:N is good for doing the 1st mass update for a new version, so that we don't break G:F, but once we have the unstable in G:F, I guess we can just update there, and have G:F:N be just a link to G:F, so that packages get built for 11.1
Most packages submitted to G:F:N are typically built once in a personal repo somewhere (I hope :-) ). So there probably is no need for G:F:N to be a test bed for the next update to G:F.
This is true for individual packages but not for GNOME overall. My plan was that if we update everything in G:F:N (or whatever we chose to call it) and only merge when it's all up-to-date, people can use G:F for testing as well as opening up the possibility of creating LiveCD's with consistent versions. As also mentioned, this might cause to much work for whoever is responsible for merging to G:F and then forwarding to oS:F. Perhaps there are better ways to try to achieve this goal? Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 07:38 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:12 +0530, Suman Manjunath wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:23 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3
might be a good idea, I guess
+1
Ok, so remaining questions are, do we use copypac or links? Using links will put some maintenance burden on the project beyond just having the latest stable GNOME release, since packages will break every now and again when patches are created for 11.1/GNOME components.
yeah, but since patches and changes are being done for 11.1 as we speak, we really need to merge changes at some point, so I think linkpac might be the best, even though it adds extra maintainance work. But I think it's easier than merging by hand all packages when submitting to G:F
Also, is G:S enough, or should we have a sub-project called G:S:2.24? I mean, what will happen once 2.26 is released? Wipe G:C and start over, or, by using subprojects, create G:C:2.26
not sure if we really want to have old GNOME versions lying around, I'd
say having STABLE and UNSTABLE should be enough. Once 2.26 is released,
it is moved to G:S, and 2.27 lands in G:F:N (or G:U)
--
Rodrigo Moya
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 18:16 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 07:38 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:12 +0530, Suman Manjunath wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:23 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3
might be a good idea, I guess
+1
Ok, so remaining questions are, do we use copypac or links? Using links will put some maintenance burden on the project beyond just having the latest stable GNOME release, since packages will break every now and again when patches are created for 11.1/GNOME components.
yeah, but since patches and changes are being done for 11.1 as we speak, we really need to merge changes at some point, so I think linkpac might be the best, even though it adds extra maintainance work. But I think it's easier than merging by hand all packages when submitting to G:F
Ok, linkpac it is.
Also, is G:S enough, or should we have a sub-project called G:S:2.24? I mean, what will happen once 2.26 is released? Wipe G:C and start over, or, by using subprojects, create G:C:2.26
not sure if we really want to have old GNOME versions lying around, I'd say having STABLE and UNSTABLE should be enough. Once 2.26 is released, it is moved to G:S, and 2.27 lands in G:F:N (or G:U)
Fair enough. So... I'd really appreciate if someone could simply delete G:S and G:U and re-create them as GNOME:Stable/GNOME:Unstable (Their names are all upper case today which is kind of ugly) and then add me to the project and I'll get going with it. The structure would then be; GNOME:Factory Current development branch, containing the current development version of GNOME for both the last released version of openSUSE and openSUSE Factory (Once merged from G:F:N, GNOME 2.25.x) GNOME:Unstable Once Factory is frozen due to the release of the distro, or if a new version of GNOME comes along that will not be in the next version of the distro, this branch will be where we update to the most current version of GNOME (Might be GNOME 2.27.x depending on 11.2 schedule) GNOME:Stable This branch will contain the version of GNOME that was shipped with the last release of openSUSE and will be updated with dot releases (GNOME 2.24.x) Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 08:54 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
The structure would then be;
GNOME:Factory Current development branch, containing the current development version of GNOME for both the last released version of openSUSE and openSUSE Factory (Once merged from G:F:N, GNOME 2.25.x)
GNOME:Unstable Once Factory is frozen due to the release of the distro, or if a new version of GNOME comes along that will not be in the next version of the distro, this branch will be where we update to the most current version of GNOME (Might be GNOME 2.27.x depending on 11.2 schedule)
GNOME:Stable This branch will contain the version of GNOME that was shipped with the last release of openSUSE and will be updated with dot releases (GNOME 2.24.x)
sounds like a good plan to me :-) Just a minor thing (which may already be happening) - _all_ the above 3 repos will/should be building for oS:factory and oS:last_release_version -Suman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 19:31 +0530, Suman Manjunath wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 08:54 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
The structure would then be;
GNOME:Factory Current development branch, containing the current development version of GNOME for both the last released version of openSUSE and openSUSE Factory (Once merged from G:F:N, GNOME 2.25.x)
GNOME:Unstable Once Factory is frozen due to the release of the distro, or if a new version of GNOME comes along that will not be in the next version of the distro, this branch will be where we update to the most current version of GNOME (Might be GNOME 2.27.x depending on 11.2 schedule)
GNOME:Stable This branch will contain the version of GNOME that was shipped with the last release of openSUSE and will be updated with dot releases (GNOME 2.24.x)
sounds like a good plan to me :-)
Just a minor thing (which may already be happening) - _all_ the above 3 repos will/should be building for oS:factory and oS:last_release_version
That is the plan. G:F already builds for both of them. Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
Le jeudi 15 janvier 2009, à 18:16 +0100, Rodrigo Moya a écrit :
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 07:38 +1100, Magnus Boman wrote:
Also, is G:S enough, or should we have a sub-project called G:S:2.24? I mean, what will happen once 2.26 is released? Wipe G:C and start over, or, by using subprojects, create G:C:2.26
not sure if we really want to have old GNOME versions lying around, I'd say having STABLE and UNSTABLE should be enough. Once 2.26 is released, it is moved to G:S, and 2.27 lands in G:F:N (or G:U)
We do, but only because we support more than one version of openSUSE. (else, we wouldn't want this, I agree). Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
Le jeudi 15 janvier 2009, à 07:38 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit :
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:12 +0530, Suman Manjunath wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:23 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3
might be a good idea, I guess
+1
Ok, so remaining questions are, do we use copypac or links? Using links will put some maintenance burden on the project beyond just having the latest stable GNOME release, since packages will break every now and again when patches are created for 11.1/GNOME components.
Also, is G:S enough, or should we have a sub-project called G:S:2.24? I mean, what will happen once 2.26 is released? Wipe G:C and start over, or, by using subprojects, create G:C:2.26
I'm replying late, but it's better than never, isn't it? :-) So, having just G:S is clearly not enough for two reasons: + for which distro G:S will be built? + for which version of GNOME is it? If we just go for one G:S for everything, then it means we'll have the one version of GNOME for all distros. This sounds impossible, and probably not what we want. I'd prefer to have something like G:S:11.1 (similar scheme to oS:11.1), or even just G:11.1. The problem with this way is that it only proposes one version of GNOME for one version of the distro. So, we have then your propoal: G:S:2.24 which builds for 11.1 and 11.0 (G:S:2.26 would build for 11.1 and 11.2, etc.). One downside of this is that it's not clear to people for which version of openSUSE this is. Hmmm. No conclusion here. I tend to prefer to have a scheme based on the openSUSE version. Oh, here's an idea: + G:11.1 -- this is oS:11.1 and it's used for working on updates to 11.1 that will be officially shipped by openSUSE + G:11.1:2.24 -- this is the latest 2.24 version for 11.1 It's not official, but should still be fairly stable. + G:11.1:2.26 -- this is GNOME X+1 version for 11.1 It's not official, but should still be stable too. We still have one issue: if I update the 2.26 version of libwnck, I only want to update it in one project, instead of updating it in G:11.1:2.26 and G:11.2:2.26. Having G:2.26 being built for 11.1 and 11.2 is therefore a good thing. => G:11.1:2.26 would be a kind of alias for "G:2.26 built for 11.1". Not sure how we can handle that in the build service (we should avoid linkpac since this involves rebuilds, and using aggregates will use twice as much disk space on the server...)
2. For each GNOME . release (2.25.4, 2.25.5 etc), should we do a complete update in G:F:N and then later merge them to G:F (Makes it possible to use G:F as a 'stable development' branch)
I think G:F:N is good for doing the 1st mass update for a new version, so that we don't break G:F, but once we have the unstable in G:F, I guess we can just update there, and have G:F:N be just a link to G:F, so that packages get built for 11.1
Most packages submitted to G:F:N are typically built once in a personal repo somewhere (I hope :-) ). So there probably is no need for G:F:N to be a test bed for the next update to G:F.
This is true for individual packages but not for GNOME overall. My plan was that if we update everything in G:F:N (or whatever we chose to call it) and only merge when it's all up-to-date, people can use G:F for testing as well as opening up the possibility of creating LiveCD's with consistent versions. As also mentioned, this might cause to much work for whoever is responsible for merging to G:F and then forwarding to oS:F.
Nod. As long as we don't have a good way to merge things, G:F:N is not something we'll be able to do forever. So I'd go the easy way and say that we go straight to G:F. It should still be of good quality anyway for testing (I mean: if it's broken on G:F:N, then no-one will notice since nobody use G:F:N on his machine; so it's the same thing). Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 03:57 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le jeudi 15 janvier 2009, à 07:38 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit :
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:12 +0530, Suman Manjunath wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:23 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3
might be a good idea, I guess
+1
Ok, so remaining questions are, do we use copypac or links? Using links will put some maintenance burden on the project beyond just having the latest stable GNOME release, since packages will break every now and again when patches are created for 11.1/GNOME components.
Also, is G:S enough, or should we have a sub-project called G:S:2.24? I mean, what will happen once 2.26 is released? Wipe G:C and start over, or, by using subprojects, create G:C:2.26
I'm replying late, but it's better than never, isn't it? :-)
So, having just G:S is clearly not enough for two reasons:
+ for which distro G:S will be built?
Currently released version and *maybe* the previously released version
+ for which version of GNOME is it?
G:S will be the latest GNOME 2.24.x until 11.2 is released
If we just go for one G:S for everything, then it means we'll have the one version of GNOME for all distros. This sounds impossible, and probably not what we want.
G:F will build the current GNOME version (2.25.x atm) for both Factory and the currently released version (11.1).
I'd prefer to have something like G:S:11.1 (similar scheme to oS:11.1), or even just G:11.1. The problem with this way is that it only proposes one version of GNOME for one version of the distro.
So, we have then your propoal: G:S:2.24 which builds for 11.1 and 11.0 (G:S:2.26 would build for 11.1 and 11.2, etc.). One downside of this is that it's not clear to people for which version of openSUSE this is.
Hmmm. No conclusion here. I tend to prefer to have a scheme based on the openSUSE version. Oh, here's an idea:
+ G:11.1 -- this is oS:11.1 and it's used for working on updates to 11.1 that will be officially shipped by openSUSE + G:11.1:2.24 -- this is the latest 2.24 version for 11.1 It's not official, but should still be fairly stable. + G:11.1:2.26 -- this is GNOME X+1 version for 11.1 It's not official, but should still be stable too.
We still have one issue: if I update the 2.26 version of libwnck, I only want to update it in one project, instead of updating it in G:11.1:2.26 and G:11.2:2.26. Having G:2.26 being built for 11.1 and 11.2 is therefore a good thing. => G:11.1:2.26 would be a kind of alias for "G:2.26 built for 11.1". Not sure how we can handle that in the build service (we should avoid linkpac since this involves rebuilds, and using aggregates will use twice as much disk space on the server...)
I don't think this is really doable due to the way OBS works currently (both linkpac and aggregate, as you mention, have their issues). I created FATE#305689 to be able to create meta-repositories in OBS, but until we have something like that we probably don't want this.
2. For each GNOME . release (2.25.4, 2.25.5 etc), should we do a complete update in G:F:N and then later merge them to G:F (Makes it possible to use G:F as a 'stable development' branch)
I think G:F:N is good for doing the 1st mass update for a new version, so that we don't break G:F, but once we have the unstable in G:F, I guess we can just update there, and have G:F:N be just a link to G:F, so that packages get built for 11.1
Most packages submitted to G:F:N are typically built once in a personal repo somewhere (I hope :-) ). So there probably is no need for G:F:N to be a test bed for the next update to G:F.
This is true for individual packages but not for GNOME overall. My plan was that if we update everything in G:F:N (or whatever we chose to call it) and only merge when it's all up-to-date, people can use G:F for testing as well as opening up the possibility of creating LiveCD's with consistent versions. As also mentioned, this might cause to much work for whoever is responsible for merging to G:F and then forwarding to oS:F.
Nod. As long as we don't have a good way to merge things, G:F:N is not something we'll be able to do forever. So I'd go the easy way and say that we go straight to G:F. It should still be of good quality anyway for testing (I mean: if it's broken on G:F:N, then no-one will notice since nobody use G:F:N on his machine; so it's the same thing).
I am using it :-) Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
Le dimanche 18 janvier 2009, à 14:23 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit :
On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 03:57 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
So, having just G:S is clearly not enough for two reasons:
+ for which distro G:S will be built?
Currently released version and *maybe* the previously released version
+ for which version of GNOME is it?
G:S will be the latest GNOME 2.24.x until 11.2 is released
That's my point: having "only" G:S means that we can only support ("support" as in "making packages available") 11.1 and 11.2, but not 11.0 (which will likely be still supported by the openSUSE project). Doesn't sound like a big deal, but, well, it'd still be nice since it probably won't involve a lot of work. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 15:42 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le dimanche 18 janvier 2009, à 14:23 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit :
On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 03:57 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
So, having just G:S is clearly not enough for two reasons:
+ for which distro G:S will be built?
Currently released version and *maybe* the previously released version
+ for which version of GNOME is it?
G:S will be the latest GNOME 2.24.x until 11.2 is released
That's my point: having "only" G:S means that we can only support ("support" as in "making packages available") 11.1 and 11.2, but not 11.0 (which will likely be still supported by the openSUSE project). Doesn't sound like a big deal, but, well, it'd still be nice since it probably won't involve a lot of work.
I'm all for this. I would like to see us use GS:2.24, GS:2.26 etc as the naming convention though. Cheers, Magnus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 03:57 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le jeudi 15 janvier 2009, à 07:38 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit :
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:12 +0530, Suman Manjunath wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:23 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3
might be a good idea, I guess
+1
Ok, so remaining questions are, do we use copypac or links? Using links will put some maintenance burden on the project beyond just having the latest stable GNOME release, since packages will break every now and again when patches are created for 11.1/GNOME components.
Also, is G:S enough, or should we have a sub-project called G:S:2.24? I mean, what will happen once 2.26 is released? Wipe G:C and start over, or, by using subprojects, create G:C:2.26
I'm replying late, but it's better than never, isn't it? :-)
So, having just G:S is clearly not enough for two reasons:
+ for which distro G:S will be built? + for which version of GNOME is it?
If we just go for one G:S for everything, then it means we'll have the one version of GNOME for all distros. This sounds impossible, and probably not what we want.
This is actually the KDE team model, KDE:KDE4:STABLE:Desktop builds for
the last 3 supported versions - ie 11.1, 11.0, 10.3.
-JP
--
JP Rosevear
Le lundi 19 janvier 2009, à 10:45 -0500, JP Rosevear a écrit :
This is actually the KDE team model, KDE:KDE4:STABLE:Desktop builds for the last 3 supported versions - ie 11.1, 11.0, 10.3.
Where this scheme fails for me is in this case: "I am a user of openSUSE 11.1 and I only wante the latest fixes for the GNOME that I already use" (ie, I want 2.24.3 instead of 2.24.1/2.24.2) There's certainly some point there, because 2.26 on 11.1 will have been less tested than 2.24, and the minor updates like 2.24.3 are unlikely to break stuff. So any scheme where there's no version (be it an openSUSE version or a GNOME version) is bound to have some issues in the end because of expectactions vs stability, IMHO. But then, maybe I'm pessimistic on this... Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@opensuse.org
participants (6)
-
JP Rosevear -
Luis Medinas -
Magnus Boman -
Rodrigo Moya -
Suman Manjunath -
Vincent Untz