Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: <gentoo-dev@g.o>
From: "Todd Wright" <wylie@...>
Subject: FW: Portage Integrity (Was: gcc ebuild's, downgrades, deletion etc)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:23:26 +1100
Spider wrote:
> But my point is: adding a ChangeLog  or 
> stating what is done difference does make a change when 
> submitting a build for something thats already in the tree.

The ebuild I mentioned in the original post to this thread did state what had changed. In this case it was primarily the software version and some minor changes to cater for changes in the way it compiled. I can understand your frustration at users submitting an ebuild with no indication of what changed, however that was not what this thread was intended to discuss.

My point, particularly related to this ebuild (though it applies equally to any software) is, who is the developer to appoint himself an expert on Hercules (a S/390 mainframe emulator) and decide that he can simply copy an old ebuild (exactly what spider has complained about users doing), when a complete and up to date ebuild was supplied (incl ppc, sparc alpha support etc) in the first place.

Unless the developer is familiar with Hercules (or other software product) he should leave it to those of us close to the development of the software to create the ebuild for it... unless he wants to download a real mainfraime OS (presumably learn it), and then run it himself for testing. Only then would I consider him qualified to create an appropriate ebuild.

In other words the people who are experts on the software in question should be controlling how it compiles/builds not those entrusted to add that knowledge to portage. The Gentoo developers should only approve that the submitted ebuild meets the standard and does not break anything else, but it is the submitted ebuild that should be added.

As it stands now, Hercules 2.17 is in portage (masked) using the 2.15 ebuild, and the 2.17 ebuild is marked "Future" which I presume means that it will be added (possibly) in the future.

In the mean time, there are differences in the layout of Hercules, and in the coresponding ebuild steps which will remain broken until the "Future" arrives.

-- _--_|\ --------- Todd Wright -- wylie@... --------
  /      \            ICQ: 9589981   YIM: mvs38j
  \_.--._*  <---   http://www.geekasylum.org/~wylie/
        v       Mobile: +61-403-796-001    Ph: +61-2-9699-1746
----------------------------------------------------------------


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies:
Re: FW: Portage Integrity (Was: gcc ebuild's, downgrades, deletion etc)
-- Spider
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
emerge pretend error
Next by thread:
Re: FW: Portage Integrity (Was: gcc ebuild's, downgrades, deletion etc)
Previous by date:
emerge pretend error
Next by date:
Gentoo for S/390 and zSeries


Updated Oct 31, 2011

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.