1 |
Joshua Saddler posted on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:55:51 -0700 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Don't take this too harshly, but doing it this way seems entirely |
4 |
> bass-ackwards to me. Why not just do one of the following: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> 1. Stabilize the dependencies. Make 'em all the same level. I went |
7 |
> through this the other from the other side when trying to get |
8 |
> RedNotebook stabilized: I couldn't do so until pyyaml, one of its |
9 |
> dependencies, had libyaml stabilized, since libyaml is an optional USE |
10 |
> dependency for pyyaml. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> By forcing all three packages to be stable, *we prevented breakage to |
13 |
> users' systems from the beginning.* No need to mess with complicated |
14 |
> stable/unstable dependency relationships. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> 2. Don't mark the origin package stable in the first place! If its |
17 |
> dependencies aren't stable, then you cannot in good conscience declare |
18 |
> that the original package should be stable, and then "let the |
19 |
> dependencies sort themselves out" . . . weeks or months down the line. |
20 |
> Just let it *and* its deps remain in ~arch. What's so wrong with that? |
21 |
|
22 |
While these may well work for individual packages, consider a "suite" |
23 |
such as X or one of the desktop environments. I'll use KDE since I /do/ |
24 |
use it. I have nowhere near the whole kde installed and it's 172 |
25 |
packages, IIRC, so there's gotta be 250 or so, more I think (it says 94 |
26 |
new ones and one in a new slot if I merge kde-meta, plus the 172, but |
27 |
some of those will be dependencies), in the entire DE-core. Are you |
28 |
/seriously/ proposing holding up all 250+ packages hostage just so one of |
29 |
the obscure bits can have an equally obscure optional dependency |
30 |
stabilized? |
31 |
|
32 |
Or are you proposing to kill support for that optional dependency |
33 |
entirely, when users might want that feature and have no problem |
34 |
package.keywording that single package to get it? |
35 |
|
36 |
I'd call both those solutions not entirely realistic. I'm just a user, |
37 |
but I know I've been unhappy with some of the dependency choices kde |
38 |
upstream has made. (More than once, I've asked myself, "What were they |
39 |
/thinking/!) Given the pattern we've seen, that sort of choice |
40 |
/will/ be forced on us, and while I'm not entirely happy about a new |
41 |
stable-use-masking file, it does seem a better alternative than we have |
42 |
now, either of your choices, or the split stable/~arch revision thing. |
43 |
|
44 |
Of course stable-only issues don't directly affect me personally, since I |
45 |
run ~arch and often development overlays and hard-unmasked packages |
46 |
anyway, but certainly, time spent worrying about stable isn't available |
47 |
to spend on more current packages, so if the stabilization process can be |
48 |
made more efficient and less troublesome, I'm all for it! =:^) |
49 |
|
50 |
-- |
51 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
52 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
53 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |