Re: [RFC] LTS branch of Portage

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:25 PM Francesco Riosa <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Il giorno mar 5 ott 2021 alle ore 10:31 Michał Górny <[email protected]> ha scritto:
>>
>> Hi, everyone.
>>
>> I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent
>> FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS
>> branch of Portage.
>>
>> Roughly, the idea is that:
>>
>> - master becomes 3.1.x, and primary development happens there
>>
>> - 3.0.x becomes the LTS branch and only major bugfixes are backported
>> there
>>
>> As things settle down in the future, master would become 3.2.x, 3.1.x
>> would become LTS, 3.0.x will be discontinued and so on.
>>
>> WDYT?
>
>
> Sorry but portage is too strictly related to the ebuilds in tree, recent removal of EAPI=5 from most eclasses underlined that.
> Or to put id differently if you want a LTS portage you also need a certain number of "protected" eclasses and ebuilds
> It seems a lot of (very appreciated but don't count on me) work

I think this is backwards a bit. The idea is to backport things from
the main (development) branch to the LTS branch such that the tree
continues to work for both; no?

This seems mostly related to "what is a bugfix and will be backported
into LTS" and "what is a feature and is not backportable for LTS" in
terms of what the tree will rely on.

-A

>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Michał Górny
>>
>>
>>