View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
arnvidr l33t
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 629 Location: Oslo, Norway
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:41 am Post subject: Portage 2.2 |
|
|
When will this thing come out? I can understand wanting to fix a bunch of bugs before releasing it, but when you start calling it Release Candidates, you shouldn't be far off. I'm on rc59 now, and that feels quite ridiculous!
Anyway, this is a rant on version numbering, not on the programming _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
AaronPPC Guru
Joined: 29 May 2005 Posts: 522 Location: Tucson, AZ
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
What is the record for release candidates anyway? _________________ --Aaron |
|
Back to top |
|
|
desultory Bodhisattva
Joined: 04 Nov 2005 Posts: 9410
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are still several open bugs which need to be resolved before 2.2 goes stable, most related to handling sets. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
V-Li Retired Dev
Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 613
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All important features have been backported to 2.1.7 anyway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
d2_racing Bodhisattva
Joined: 25 Apr 2005 Posts: 13047 Location: Ste-Foy,Canada
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In fact, is there any new info on if we will use sets at all with portage 2.2, because right now, I install my box with the old fashion method even if I use portage 2.2-rc58. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
V-Li Retired Dev
Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 613
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would not count on it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AllenJB Veteran
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 Posts: 1285
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For general use, I find sets to work brilliantly. I also think that now that world and system are explicitly sets, users will be able to make sense of them much more easily.
As well as being able to create my own sets, there's a whole bunch of "utility" sets such as @module-rebuild that just go towards making life that much easier (I know that for many of them utilities already exist, but you have to know about and install these before they are available while under portage 2.2 they're displayed under "--list-sets". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
V-Li Retired Dev
Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 613
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I did not follow the discussion back then, but there is a general flaw in the current meaning of sets. A better solution has not come up yet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
asturm Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007 Posts: 8936
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, I've been increasingly using sets since about rc15 was around, it's a nice feature. Portage-2.2 imo is safe for use for some time now... under usual circumstances it would be ~arch already (even has been for a short time at the beginning). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10589 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
V-Li wrote: | I did not follow the discussion back then, but there is a general flaw in the current meaning of sets. A better solution has not come up yet. | I obviously didn't follow even as well as you. What's the general flaw?
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
d2_racing Bodhisattva
Joined: 25 Apr 2005 Posts: 13047 Location: Ste-Foy,Canada
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In fact, do you have any info ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
V-Li Retired Dev
Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 613
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are problems with the rebuild target, that causes cyclic rebuild dependencies. It is a design flaw and cannot be resolved easily. So the 2.2 branch will probably be kicked as many things are just prototypes and not for the release. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Posts: 1118 Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: Portage 2.2 |
|
|
arnvidr wrote: | When will this thing come out? I can understand wanting to fix a bunch of bugs before releasing it, but when you start calling it Release Candidates, you shouldn't be far off. I'm on rc59 now, and that feels quite ridiculous!
Anyway, this is a rant on version numbering, not on the programming |
++
I mean, surely portage has the world record for Release Candidate releases by now. _________________
juniper wrote: | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
d2_racing Bodhisattva
Joined: 25 Apr 2005 Posts: 13047 Location: Ste-Foy,Canada
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
V-Li wrote: | There are problems with the rebuild target, that causes cyclic rebuild dependencies. It is a design flaw and cannot be resolved easily. So the 2.2 branch will probably be kicked as many things are just prototypes and not for the release. |
So maybe, we will have a portage 2.3 in 2010 then |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10589 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
V-Li wrote: | There are problems with the rebuild target, that causes cyclic rebuild dependencies. It is a design flaw and cannot be resolved easily. So the 2.2 branch will probably be kicked as many things are just prototypes and not for the release. | Okay, so it's not a problem with the current defined semantic meaning of sets, per se, but a deep issue with the implementation, right?
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
V-Li Retired Dev
Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 613
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't ask me! I only overheard other people, and Zac Medico (main Portage developer) says that 2.2 contains too much experimental code...so he is in favour to ditch it entirely. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
d2_racing Bodhisattva
Joined: 25 Apr 2005 Posts: 13047 Location: Ste-Foy,Canada
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When I see Zac on IRC, I'm gonna ask him more details about the experiment code and I will post the answer here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gkmac Guru
Joined: 19 Jan 2003 Posts: 333 Location: West Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
V-Li wrote: | So the 2.2 branch will probably be kicked as many things are just prototypes and not for the release. |
If the 2.2 branch is ditched, will there be a way for us who used the 2.2 branch to rollback gracefully to 2.1.x.x? _________________ If ~amd64 ebuilds are cutting edge, then git-9999 ebuilds are chainsaws.
"Not everyone can ride a unicycle, does that mean we should put another wheel on it?" - Lokheed |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10589 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Doesn't sound like the 2.2 branch will be masked before its successor is available.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
asturm Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007 Posts: 8936
|
Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, hopefully not.
I remember there weren't any problems downgrading to 2.1 in the early days of 2.2. Certainly there will be some work to do depending on one's usage of sets. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
V-Li Retired Dev
Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 613
|
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apart from sets all features are available in the 2.1 series, so compatability is given as long as you don't use sets. Anyway, a sane migration/upgrade path will be provided. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gkmac Guru
Joined: 19 Jan 2003 Posts: 333 Location: West Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
V-Li wrote: | Apart from sets all features are available in the 2.1 series, so compatability is given as long as you don't use sets. |
...and I do use sets, so there isn't compatibility in my case, thus I can't rollback to the 2.1 series. _________________ If ~amd64 ebuilds are cutting edge, then git-9999 ebuilds are chainsaws.
"Not everyone can ride a unicycle, does that mean we should put another wheel on it?" - Lokheed |
|
Back to top |
|
|
warrens Apprentice
Joined: 04 Jan 2005 Posts: 239 Location: Don't Tread On Me!
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dropping portage-2.2 would be a forced downgrade for me _________________ The BIGGER the GOVERNMENT, the smaller the citizen.
DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!
My Bias #1
The best government is the government that governs least. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
V-Li Retired Dev
Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 613
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, Portage 2.2 will not disappear into nowhere right now! It will go away one day. But that day will contain a path to not loose all the things you started loving about sets. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
d2_racing Bodhisattva
Joined: 25 Apr 2005 Posts: 13047 Location: Ste-Foy,Canada
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
In fact, Zac will do something for us |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|