Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: madwifi-ng not compile in amd64
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:05:02
Message-Id: 200801300904.58017.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de
In Reply to: [gentoo-amd64] Re: madwifi-ng not compile in amd64 by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
1 On Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2008, Duncan wrote:
2 > Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> posted
3 > 200801300220.21430.volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de, excerpted below,
4 >
5 > on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:20:21 +0100:
6 > >> also adding --as-needed as LDFLAGS should help you save some time in
7 > >> recompiling stuff....
8 > >
9 > > yeah - no. Don't do it. It breaks stuff.
10 >
11 > I think the breakage in most of the common stuff Gentoo devs anyway use
12 > has been fixed by now. I know I've had surprisingly few problems (read,
13 > ZERO problems) with it here. Surprising, as I expected at least a few,
14 > but I've seen exactly ZERO.
15 >
16 > That said, especially for those who just want things to work, without
17 > having to futz with LDFLAGS and remerge something occasionally, I'd still
18 > not recommend it. For those that enjoy the challenge of such things,
19 > however, I'd say great! Go for it! And for those in the middle, well,
20 > YMMV, as the saying goes. You probably lean one way or the other, so
21 > take your pick.
22
23 aren't bug reports with --as-needed closed as invalid per default?
24
25 >
26 > As for amd64 vs. ~amd64, I'm 100% ~amd64 here, and have been from when I
27 > started on Gentoo.
28
29 when I started with gentoo, there was no 'stable' or 'unstable'.
30
31 And IMHO that was a lot better. But some day some people tried to turn gentoo
32 into a 'debian from source'.
33
34 > In fact, I've read suggestions that Gentoo tends to
35 > work better at ~arch than at stable, because ~ is where most developers
36 > are, and it's not uncommon for certain incompatibilities with "old"
37 > software, that is, the crufty stable stuff from months or years ago
38 > that's common in stable, to be overlooked until some poor stable keyword
39 > user files a bug. Yes, before stabilizing, the arch-devs and arch-
40 > testers normally test a package against a full-stable system, but it's
41 > simply not possible to test against every permutation of USE flags and
42 > mix of merged apps. While it's certainly true that ~arch packages have
43 > the same issue, at least there there's a decently active community of
44 > testers actively reporting bugs and devs fixing them.
45
46 from my experience, go stable or unstable. But don't mix. And a better name
47 for stable would be 'stale'.
48
49 That said, a lot of problems who hit me as an unstable user hit my 'stable'
50 friends too. So why use 'stable' at all?
51
52 >
53 >
54 > <brainstorming> What would be great would be a keyword system that would
55 > allow just this, say ~ for initial testing, automatically upgraded to /
56 > after the week UNLESS they've been marked ~~, with the extra ~
57 > automatically added to ~ packages by a script if a bug has been filed,
58 > blocking the automatic upgrade to /, and a bugzilla keyword that a dev
59 > could add to put the package back on automated / track if they've decided
60 > the bug isn't worth derailing the automated / upgrade over. Then people
61 > could go full testing ~ mode if they wanted, / mode if they wanted almost
62 > ~ but wanted to be spared the pain of the most obvious bugs as found in
63 > the initial testing wave, and full stable arch if they wanted crufty old
64 > packages, say for a server only upgraded for security issues or the like,
65 > somewhere. </brainstorming>
66
67 what would be great would be recognizing that 'stable' does not work.
68
69 >
70 > Of course, YMMV, but ~ for the entire system, with appropriate site based
71 > masking as Gentoo already makes possible with /etc/portage/package.mask
72 > and the like, isn't as terrible or system breaking as some folks like to
73 > make it out to be. By policy, ~ is only for stable track packages in the
74 > first place. Obviously broken packages and those not considered stable
75 > candidates normally never get even the ~ keyword, as they are kept in
76 > development overlays or in the tree but without keywords or fully hard
77 > masked, so ~ packages aren't the broken things a lot of people make them
78 > out to be.
79
80 exactly.
81
82 ~arch is not for broken packages, brocken or highly experimental stuff is in
83 package.mask.
84
85
86 --
87 gentoo-amd64@l.g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: madwifi-ng not compile in amd64 Beso <givemesugarr@×××××.com>