Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

[Brian Harring]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 06:06:02PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broken" in the first paragraph nor
> > > how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if
> > > a repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing the users'
> > > ride, I'm personally all for it.
> >
> > By "broken" I mean unported. In other words, directly depending on
> > either virtual/x11 or x11-base/xorg-x11. The check will help discover
> > unmaintained packages by not allowing people to do flyby fixes without
> > also fixing this.
> >
> > What can I do to speed up the process of getting this into a 2.1
> > release? Keep in mind my python is beyond bad.
>
> Perhaps not so easy. What specific states need to be checked for to regard a
> package as broken? Depending on "x11-base/xorg-x11" is one. Depending on
> "virtual/x11" seems to be valid looking at the porting guide though. Would
> considering a package broken if it contains "virtual/x11" where the token
> immediately preceding the surrounding brackets is not "||" be correct?
>
> DEPEND="x11-base/xorg-x11"              # wrong
> DEPEND="virtual/x11"                    # wrong
> DEPEND="|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )"    # wrong
> DEPEND="|| ( misc/atoms virtual/x11 )"  # right
>
> There's a small possibility that broken packages will be missed by this, but
> is there any chance that valid packages will be incorrectly flagged? If this
> gets a go-ahead, it'll be easy enough to get in for the next release (which
> is likely this coming Saturday).

Patch misses on 
|| ( virtual/x11 )
|| ( x86? ( virtual/x11 ) b )
via the latter, kind of guranteed it's going to miss on
|| ( x86? ( valid-dep ) virtual/x11 )
also...

Fixing it's a bit fun.  fixed a few of the issues in 
dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/deprecated-x11-scan.py , but some of the 
cases still exist.
~harring