Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: madwifi-ng not compile in amd64

[Beso]

2008/1/30, Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de>:
>
> On Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2008, Duncan wrote:
> > Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> posted
> > 200801300220.21430.volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de, excerpted
> below,
> >
> > on  Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:20:21 +0100:
> > >> also adding --as-needed as LDFLAGS should help you save some time in
> > >> recompiling stuff....
> > >
> > > yeah - no. Don't do it. It breaks stuff.
> >
> > I think the breakage in most of the common stuff Gentoo devs anyway use
> > has been fixed by now.  I know I've had surprisingly few problems (read,
> > ZERO problems) with it here.  Surprising, as I expected at least a few,
> > but I've seen exactly ZERO.
> >
> > That said, especially for those who just want things to work, without
> > having to futz with LDFLAGS and remerge something occasionally, I'd
> still
> > not recommend it.  For those that enjoy the challenge of such things,
> > however, I'd say great!  Go for it!  And for those in the middle, well,
> > YMMV, as the saying goes.  You probably lean one way or the other, so
> > take your pick.
>
> aren't bug reports with --as-needed closed as invalid per default?


they might be, but the fact is that the flag is good and working well.

>
> > As for amd64 vs. ~amd64, I'm 100% ~amd64 here, and have been from when I
> > started on Gentoo.
>
> when I started with gentoo, there was no 'stable' or 'unstable'.
>
> And IMHO that was a lot better. But some day some people tried to turn
> gentoo
> into a 'debian from source'.


hmmm.... from what i remember gento always had stable/unstable branches.
i've started using it about 4 or 5 years ago and for what i remember the 2
branches were there already....

> In fact, I've read suggestions that Gentoo tends to
> > work better at ~arch than at stable, because ~ is where most developers
> > are, and it's not uncommon for certain incompatibilities with "old"
> > software, that is, the crufty stable stuff from months or years ago
> > that's common in stable, to be overlooked until some poor stable keyword
> > user files a bug.  Yes, before stabilizing, the arch-devs and arch-
> > testers normally test a package against a full-stable system, but it's
> > simply not possible to test against every permutation of USE flags and
> > mix of merged apps.  While it's certainly true that ~arch packages have
> > the same issue, at least there there's a decently active community of
> > testers actively reporting bugs and devs fixing them.
>
> from my experience, go stable or unstable. But don't mix. And a better
> name
> for stable would be 'stale'.
>
> That said, a lot of problems who hit me as an unstable user hit my
> 'stable'
> friends too. So why use 'stable' at all?


well, i had more problems with  whole unstable system. the whole unstable
could mix up your system, since a daily update, as i do, especially on
system packages is bad. it could push in some bad stuff inside.

>
> >
> > <brainstorming> What would be great would be a keyword system that would
> > allow just this, say ~ for initial testing, automatically upgraded to /
> > after the week UNLESS they've been marked ~~, with the extra ~
> > automatically added to ~ packages by a script if a bug has been filed,
> > blocking the automatic upgrade to /, and a bugzilla keyword that a dev
> > could add to put the package back on automated / track if they've
> decided
> > the bug isn't worth derailing the automated / upgrade over.  Then people
> > could go full testing ~ mode if they wanted, / mode if they wanted
> almost
> > ~ but wanted to be spared the pain of the most obvious bugs as found in
> > the initial testing wave, and full stable arch if they wanted crufty old
> > packages, say for a server only upgraded for security issues or the
> like,
> > somewhere. </brainstorming>
>
> what would be great would be recognizing that 'stable' does not work.


the problem is that stable needs a lot of testing. and the devs don't have
the time to test is anymore. kde3.5.8 went stable yesterday, but i've been
using it from when it got into portage without problems. also, there are a
lot of unstable packages that the people need so what i'd suggest is the
removal of stable for non-system packages.

>
> > Of course, YMMV, but ~ for the entire system, with appropriate site
> based
> > masking as Gentoo already makes possible with /etc/portage/package.mask
> > and the like, isn't as terrible or system breaking as some folks like to
> > make it out to be.  By policy, ~ is only for stable track packages in
> the
> > first place.  Obviously broken packages and those not considered stable
> > candidates normally never get even the ~ keyword, as they are kept in
> > development overlays or in the tree but without keywords or fully hard
> > masked, so ~ packages aren't the broken things a lot of people make them
> > out to be.
>
> exactly.
>
> ~arch is not for broken packages, brocken or highly experimental stuff is
> in
> package.mask.


or doesn't get into portage at all.... usually a package that is broken
isn't in portage, unless it has already gotten into, but was found broken.

--
> gentoo-amd64@l.g.o mailing list
>
>


-- 
dott. ing. beso