stable vs. unstable ports?

[Darren Weber]

I've noticed problems during port upgrades.

What is the general consensus on having a TAG for each port to indicate it's
"success" status within the system?

Is it possible to have a meta-port monitor that automatically tracks the
status of each package install and reports that status back to a central
repository to continuously flag the status of a port install.  A simple
dichotomy of stable and unstable might suffice (Debian uses stable,
unstable, and testing).  Perhaps the monitoring system could provide the
data required to justify these port status levels.

I imagine the system could be something like

a) meta-port launches each install using port and monitors the success or
failure of that process, then returns a value to a central repository.
b) the central repository has some algorithm to determine a port status
(stable, unstable, etc.) and it notifies a port maintainer with a daily,
weekly digest or summary of the situation.
c) the monitoring system and reporting should "switch-off" somehow when the
port becomes stable for a while, but it may be reactivated by a failure.
That is, the success status of an install is always monitored, but reporting
to central repository etc. is not required on any successful install for a
stable port.

Perhaps the meta-port is simply a module (procedure, function) within port
or a wrapper for port?  It seems Porticus must be doing something like this
already.

Take care, Darren
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20090322/c50178ea/attachment.html>