| 1 |
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 14:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:02:41 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > It is handled better by working out what exactly the problem is, |
| 5 |
> > > and if you can't implement it nicely using existing features, then |
| 6 |
> > > not implementing it at all until you have suitable features. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Sorry to make this old thread pop up again but, no, it is not |
| 9 |
> > acceptable to not ship packages like webkit just because you dislike |
| 10 |
> > the solution we used to workaround a well known problem in ebuild |
| 11 |
> > packaging. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> No-one is saying "don't ship webkit". What is being asked is that a) you |
| 14 |
> ship webkit with a subset of functionality disabled if necessary for |
| 15 |
> now, and b) that you provide a general description of what you can't |
| 16 |
> provide cleanly using existing functionality. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Well the problem is simple, we need to ship webkit with gtk2 and gtk3 |
| 19 |
support. This is needed because gentoo has gtk2 based desktop/apps and |
| 20 |
because we want to ship gnome3 for example. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Cool thing is that webkit supports being built with each toolkit without |
| 23 |
conflicting with the build from the other toolkit hence we ended up |
| 24 |
using SLOTS. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Then the problem is that you cannot have two ebuilds of the same version |
| 27 |
in two different slots. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
We then had a couple of solutions, most notable being: |
| 30 |
* using -r${SLOT}${PATCHLEVEL} suffix, being a strictly increasing |
| 31 |
number that is not expected to go over 300 which is the start of the |
| 32 |
sequence for the other slot. |
| 33 |
* using a new package name, duplicating ebuilds |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> If you really think it's necessary to come up with a workaround like |
| 36 |
> this, though, then you should be mailing the list and asking for QA or |
| 37 |
> Council approval, rather than doing it and then asking for forgiveness |
| 38 |
> later. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
As far as I remember the subject was discussed (at least) once on this |
| 41 |
mailing list before the problem even occurred for gtk2/gtk3 handling and |
| 42 |
everyone was ok with it. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Shall we add that subject to next council meeting or do we just wait for |
| 45 |
QA's opinion here ? |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
| 49 |
Gentoo |
Archives