Clarify in policy that development/ustable series should be hardmasked. We already have required information in our guide: ============================================================================= http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1 "In another example, if Gimp decides to release an unstable/development series marked as 1.3.0, then these ebuilds should be put in package.mask because the software itself is of development quality and is not recommended by the developers for distribution." ============================================================================= But developers still have questions (bugs.gentoo.org/319923#c1 or bug 292321 or ... search -dev mailing list, this was discussed not so long ago and people voiced different opinions). At the same time "development/unstable" looks clearly worded and it means this package should not be pushed on users. Upstream already contacted us and stated explicitly not to use such versions (e.g. here: bugs.gentoo.org/292321#c23 ) but we still have such packages in the tree in ~arch... I think partially reason for that is not clear policy and I suggest to add explicit note about this specific case. Patch follows.
Created attachment 231627 [details, diff] hb-policy-ebuild.xml.patch
As we should be deprecating ebuild development parts of the development handbook. How about we move all package.mask related information to: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/profiles/package.mask/index.html
The terms "unstable" and "development" have varying meanings depending on which upstream we're dealing with and the context. Gentoo developers are the ones making the decision of what should be masked or not. Thus I would sed your patch with: s:Unstable/development releases:Releases considered unstable or in development: Feel free to counter-patch it or even awk it. ;o) Denis.
Created attachment 231757 [details, diff] hb-policy-ebuild.xml.patch (In reply to comment #3) > The terms "unstable" and "development" have varying meanings Um, actually very few upstreams really differentiate this terms. Much more common that different upstream developers use either first or second for the basically same thing. > depending on which upstream we're dealing with and the context. Gentoo > developers are the ones making the decision of what should be masked or not. Agreed. But but what I mean is that unstable packages in ~arch should be an exception for good reason. That said, I've updated patch to clarify some points. I hope it looks better now.
(In reply to comment #2) > How about we move all package.mask related information to ..devmanual... In general I think that it's good idea to have single source of information. But this part is part of QA policy and as such I think it should be separated, but referenced in the relevant parts of devmanual.
Created attachment 367028 [details, diff] Improve wording on when to use the package.mask file This handboook-ebuild-policy document is deprecated and not updated anymore. Such info should be moved to devmanual I feel the current wording in devmanual needs improvement as well. http://devmanual.gentoo.org/profiles/package.mask/index.html So, I copied the text from your patch to improve it. @QA, can we get an ACK on the new patch please?
My concern is that "unstable" for us and "unstable" for upstream are two different things, and I'm concerned about people getting the two confused.
(In reply to Chris Reffett from comment #7) > My concern is that "unstable" for us and "unstable" for upstream are two > different things, and I'm concerned about people getting the two confused. I don't think the term "unstable" is so different upstream vs downstream. For example any _alpha, _beta is considered development/unstable version in both directions. Also major bumps such as 2.0->3.0 are also considered development releases (kde3->4.0) and warrant a mask. I feel that analyzing this term in depth will cause further confusion. I believe it's up to maintainers' discretion to handle such cases for his packages.
(In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #8) > (In reply to Chris Reffett from comment #7) > > My concern is that "unstable" for us and "unstable" for upstream are two > > different things, and I'm concerned about people getting the two confused. > > I don't think the term "unstable" is so different upstream vs downstream. We have some _alpha versions of packages in stable(for packages with stalled upstream and fixed security issues only in that alpha's). So it depends on concrete packages - some _alphas are just called so, other are really constant 'run/click/type and segfault' ones. So, i would like to see here just recomendation for careful checking in per-package basis, rather than strong policy on hardmasking.
(In reply to Sergey Popov from comment #9) > (In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #8) > > (In reply to Chris Reffett from comment #7) > > > My concern is that "unstable" for us and "unstable" for upstream are two > > > different things, and I'm concerned about people getting the two confused. > > > > I don't think the term "unstable" is so different upstream vs downstream. > > We have some _alpha versions of packages in stable(for packages with stalled > upstream and fixed security issues only in that alpha's). So it depends on > concrete packages - some _alphas are just called so, other are really > constant 'run/click/type and segfault' ones. > > So, i would like to see here just recomendation for careful checking in > per-package basis, rather than strong policy on hardmasking. So could someone please amend the attached patch to finally get this fixed?
(In reply to Markos Chandras (RETIRED) from comment #6) > Created attachment 367028 [details, diff] [details, diff] > Improve wording on when to use the package.mask file We need a sign-off for this patch, otherwise we cannot merge it: https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0076.html#certificate-of-origin
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/devmanual.git/commit/?id=15dee0505f502a5eb3a248257b61f02f3f30bee9 commit 15dee0505f502a5eb3a248257b61f02f3f30bee9 Author: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2022-03-15 19:01:59 +0000 Commit: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2022-03-16 14:51:48 +0000 profiles/package.mask: mention masking development versions Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/319927 Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> profiles/package.mask/text.xml | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
