Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Grobian <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 20:39:42
Message-Id: 431B5B75.9050001@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos by Hasan Khalil
1 You better pick me as a victim, instead of an innocent, just interested
2 user on the mailing list.
3
4
5 Hasan Khalil wrote:
6 >
7 > On Sep 4, 2005, at 24:00, Finn Thain wrote:
8 >
9 >> Are there known bugs with the ~ppc-macos baselayout?
10 >
11 > Yes and no. There are design issues still in the works with it. I think
12 > that the general consensus is that it's definitely _not_ ready for
13 > prime-time, yet.
14 >
15 >> Yes, and if devs used stable, that would improve QA also. If the dev that
16 >> keyworded qt was using stable, s/he would have found that the qt deps
17 >> were
18 >> wrong because they don't include the baselayout requirement.
19 >
20 > Uh, no? The x11-libs/qt deps are indeed correct. Please do your homework
21 > before posting to this list; you should read up on Gentoo policy about
22 > DEPENDS and packages that are in 'system', such as baselayout.
23 >
24 > Should Gentoo policy change, I would have absolutely no problem (and
25 > would actually encourage) adding 'virtual/baselayout' to DEPENDS where
26 > necessary. Brian Harring has also discussed this on gentoo-dev, in
27 > relation to 'BDEPENDS'.
28 >
29 >> Well, moving stable packages to testing also creates a misnomer.
30 >
31 > Again, do your homework. Stable packages are a subset of testing
32 > packages for any given arch. By specifying '~arch' in your KEYWORDS (in
33 > /etc/make.conf), you are actually implicitly specifying 'arch'.
34 >
35 >> Can someone explain what is to be gained from this that cannot be
36 >> achieved
37 >> with automated builds (e.g. to weed out the badly broken stable packages
38 >> and check the deps of the ~ppc-macos packages); as well as a policy to
39 >> relax the "30 day" rule?
40 >
41 > What automated builds? AFAIK, we don't have an automated build system,
42 > and one won't exist for a Real Long Time(tm). Once it does, I'm all for
43 > keeping a stable branch. Until then, I find that keeping a stable branch
44 > is way more work than we can keep up with, for all the reasons cited in
45 > my previous message(s) to this list.
46 >
47 > I don't mean to sound rude, here; I apologize in advance if I do. Please
48 > don't take any of this personally.
49
50 --
51 Fabian Groffen
52 Gentoo for Mac OS X
53 --
54 gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list