| 1 |
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Lina Pezzella wrote (in reply to Grobian): |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >The problem is happening for real at |
| 4 |
> >http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87758 |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >there baselayout is necessary. However, baselayout is only pulled in |
| 7 |
> >the initial "emerge system" if you use ACCEPT_KEYWORD="~ppc-macos". |
| 8 |
> >Hence, I can't compile, because QTDIR is not set for me, while someone |
| 9 |
> >having a complete ~ppc-macos system can. Portage won't pull the |
| 10 |
> >dependency of baselayout for a reason I think, but the particular |
| 11 |
> >problem sheds this light on the whole problem of how to test what on |
| 12 |
> >which system. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> This is basically the basis of Hasan and my proposal to drop stable |
| 15 |
> support for ppc-macos. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think that if the amd team's methodology [1] had been employed, this |
| 18 |
problem would be less important. That is, "...chroots for core packages |
| 19 |
going from package.masked to testing..." Had the core packages been |
| 20 |
package.masked, qt would not have been keyworded ~ppc-macos. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
(One might take a broad definition of "core packages" to mean "a package |
| 23 |
that commonly serves as an implicit dep".) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In general, it would then be safer for a stable end-user to do the |
| 26 |
occasional emerge from ~ppc-macos (an idea I like a lot), and it would |
| 27 |
mean that devs did not have to uniformly adopt ~ppc-macos (which is is not |
| 28 |
great for QA), and it would mean one less reason to drop the ppc-macos |
| 29 |
keyword (I'm trying criticise that proposal constructively, as I realise |
| 30 |
that its motivation is important.) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-f |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
[1] http://groups.google.com.au/group/linux.gentoo.dev/msg/7d984fa7593f8e80?hl=en& |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives