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-1.2.5.1-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

See above.


>> 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 1.2.5.1 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.