List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On 09/24/2011 08:24 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2011 17:44:50 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> I believe something needs to be done with the zlib-22.214.171.124-r1 and -r2
>> packages currently in the tree. The maintainer of zlib pushed those
>> revisions with a patch that alters macro identifiers, making Gentoo's
>> zlib incompatible with upstream.
> the defines in question are internal to zlib. packages relying on them are
> broken, plain and simple.
Then fix *them*, not zlib.
>> As a result, a lot of packages stopped building.
> the *only* code that broke was code that was copied out of the zlib tree and
> directly imported into other projects -- minizip. because the code was
> designed to be compiled& linked as part of the zlib project, it uses internal
> zlib defines. projects copying the code into their own tree and not cleaning
> things up made a mistake.
> for many, this is a direct violation of Gentoo policy and they should be fixed
> to use the minizip code that zlib exports. for the rest that modify the code
> heavily, they should stop using the internal defines since their own code base
> doesn't support pre-ansi C compilers.
Then why did you "fix" zlib instead of those bad packages?
>> Bug reports for broken packages come in and then are being
>> modified to fit Gentoo's zlib.
> and those fixes can be sent to the respective upstreams
>> Breaking compatibility with upstream zlib also means that non-portage
>> software, the ones I install with "./configure --prefix=$HOME/usr&&
>> make install", also won't build.
> send the fix to the upstream maintainer
Maybe 5% of users know how to code. The rest doesn't.
>> It's a mess right now and it just doesn't look right. The bug that
>> deals with it was locked from public view:
> because you keep presenting the same flawed ideas and ignore the responses.
> in fact, all of the answers i posted above i already posted to the bug.
You ignore the suggestions, which is the reason the same arguments pop
up over and over again. The core issue is that ~arch is turning into a
testing ground for upstreams rather than for Gentoo packaging. It's not
nice to keep something in portage unmasked that is *known* to break
packages, and *especially* if it's a beta release of an important base
library (which zlib 126.96.36.199 certainly is). But you ignore that
repeatedly. And this makes it very frustrating to communicate.
~arch is not for cleaning up upstream crap. ~arch is for testing
packages that will later be marked stable.