1 |
On Tue, 2006-24-01 at 13:32 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> Mark Loeser wrote: |
3 |
> >>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:06:12 -0800 Donnie Berkholz |
4 |
> >>> <spyderous@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> >>> What's wrong with the original idea of just making any unported ebuild |
6 |
> >>> pull in all of modular X (minus drivers)? Yes, it means that some |
7 |
> >>> people will pick up unnecessary deps until all packages are ported, but |
8 |
> >>> it avoids anyone having to see flashy red errors. |
9 |
> >> The problem with that is that it removes all motivation to ever port the |
10 |
> >> packages. They'll just stay that way forever, where forever means "until |
11 |
> >> I threaten to remove that from the virtual," in which case we'll be in |
12 |
> >> the same scenario we are now. Why? Because people have better things to |
13 |
> >> do than fix stuff that isn't broken. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > It'd be nice if you reconsidered this as it will minimize any breakage that |
16 |
> > may occur. Knowing that >800 packages are broken, and going to unmask it |
17 |
> > knowing that just doesn't seem acceptable in my eyes. ~arch isn't meant to |
18 |
> > be "things are known to be broken." It's meant to mean, we think all of this |
19 |
> > is ready to be stable, which it certainly won't be in this case. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> No, it won't. It will just postpone the same breakage, as I said above. |
22 |
> You haven't provided any logic or backup to your contrary statement, |
23 |
> just said that somehow a large portion of the other 800 will magically |
24 |
> get ported. |
25 |
|
26 |
Why not just postpone the unmasking by a few days... and lets say give |
27 |
48h from now for all devs to fix their apps and have the volunteers |
28 |
finish off the rest. Btw, I'll volunteer to help if I have any free time |
29 |
this week. And then the unmasking can be much less painful. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Olivier CrĂȘte |
33 |
tester@g.o |
34 |
Gentoo Developer |
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |