| 1 |
On 09/24/2011 08:24 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday, September 23, 2011 17:44:50 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I believe something needs to be done with the zlib-1.2.5.1-r1 and -r2 |
| 4 |
>> packages currently in the tree. The maintainer of zlib pushed those |
| 5 |
>> revisions with a patch that alters macro identifiers, making Gentoo's |
| 6 |
>> zlib incompatible with upstream. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> the defines in question are internal to zlib. packages relying on them are |
| 9 |
> broken, plain and simple. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Then fix *them*, not zlib. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>> As a result, a lot of packages stopped building. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> the *only* code that broke was code that was copied out of the zlib tree and |
| 17 |
> directly imported into other projects -- minizip. because the code was |
| 18 |
> designed to be compiled& linked as part of the zlib project, it uses internal |
| 19 |
> zlib defines. projects copying the code into their own tree and not cleaning |
| 20 |
> things up made a mistake. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> for many, this is a direct violation of Gentoo policy and they should be fixed |
| 23 |
> to use the minizip code that zlib exports. for the rest that modify the code |
| 24 |
> heavily, they should stop using the internal defines since their own code base |
| 25 |
> doesn't support pre-ansi C compilers. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Then why did you "fix" zlib instead of those bad packages? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
>> Bug reports for broken packages come in and then are being |
| 31 |
>> modified to fit Gentoo's zlib. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> and those fixes can be sent to the respective upstreams |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
See above. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
>> Breaking compatibility with upstream zlib also means that non-portage |
| 39 |
>> software, the ones I install with "./configure --prefix=$HOME/usr&& |
| 40 |
>> make install", also won't build. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> send the fix to the upstream maintainer |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Maybe 5% of users know how to code. The rest doesn't. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
>> It's a mess right now and it just doesn't look right. The bug that |
| 48 |
>> deals with it was locked from public view: |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> because you keep presenting the same flawed ideas and ignore the responses. |
| 51 |
> in fact, all of the answers i posted above i already posted to the bug. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
You ignore the suggestions, which is the reason the same arguments pop |
| 54 |
up over and over again. The core issue is that ~arch is turning into a |
| 55 |
testing ground for upstreams rather than for Gentoo packaging. It's not |
| 56 |
nice to keep something in portage unmasked that is *known* to break |
| 57 |
packages, and *especially* if it's a beta release of an important base |
| 58 |
library (which zlib 1.2.5.1 certainly is). But you ignore that |
| 59 |
repeatedly. And this makes it very frustrating to communicate. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
~arch is not for cleaning up upstream crap. ~arch is for testing |
| 62 |
packages that will later be marked stable. |
Archives