Subject: Re: Binary package sets
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/24/2001 15:05:20
[ On Tuesday, April 24, 2001 at 10:57:31 (-0700), Greywolf wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Binary package sets
> Perhaps I, too, am missing the point. I know I'm missing SOMEone's point!
> But...how about flat-branching (read: tagging)? You tag the last known
> good version of each thing in pkgsrc with a tag indicating a "good"
> release point, and post instructions on doing a tagged retrieval.
> You get the benefit of having a point of stability without the overhead
> of a branching effort.
> Comments? Am I being away too short-sighted?
That does nothing to ease the difficulty of doing all the extra
integration testing, and it does nothing to help with maintaining a
branch for older releases once there's more than one.... I guess you
could have multiple "good" tags, one for each previous release, but
that's really kinda silly....
Also in theory the head of the trunk is always supposed to be the last
"good" release point, isn't it?!?!? ;-)
Branching is the correct way to do it, if indeed "doing it" is desired.
In CVS branching in a repository/module of this size of course creates
its own issues w.r.t. performance and growth....
Adding release management to pkgsrc is indeed an enormous task no matter
which way you slice it, and it'll only get larger and more difficult as
the number of packages continues to increase.
One thing that would help enormously though would be the elimination of
all shared libraries from pkgsrc! ;-)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>