Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Finn Thain <fthain@××××××××××××××××.au>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 04:01:23
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.63.0509041333390.28651@loopy.telegraphics.com.au
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos by Lina Pezzella
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Lina Pezzella wrote:

> >The problem is happening for real at > >http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87758 > > > >there baselayout is necessary. However, baselayout is only pulled in > >the initial "emerge system" if you use ACCEPT_KEYWORD="~ppc-macos". > >Hence, I can't compile, because QTDIR is not set for me, while someone > >having a complete ~ppc-macos system can. Portage won't pull the > >dependency of baselayout for a reason I think, but the particular > >problem sheds this light on the whole problem of how to test what on > >which system. > > This is basically the basis of Hasan and my proposal to drop stable > support for ppc-macos. The reason "emerge system" pulls in different > packages dependent on whether you are running ~ppc-macos or ppc-macos is > that baselayout-darwin and coreutils-darwin are not yet ready for > stable. What I mean by this is that they haven't been sufficiently > tested and may still change significantly.
Are there known bugs with the ~ppc-macos baselayout?
> The crux of the issue here is that we are only really pretending to have > stable support. We all agree that there are "stable" packages that don't > work. This is not "stable", and imho we shouldn't pretend to have stable > support when we really don't. Additionally, I think QA would improve > drastically if all developers could work on the same system setup and > expect users to have the same system setup.
Yes, and if devs used stable, that would improve QA also. If the dev that keyworded qt was using stable, s/he would have found that the qt deps were wrong because they don't include the baselayout requirement.
> Once we have the manpower and a less dynamic setup (right now our > profiles change frequently, we are toying with the prefixed-install > idea, baselayout and coreutils are changing) we definitely should > support stable. Until then I think it is just a misnomer that should be > dropped.
Well, moving stable packages to testing also creates a misnomer.
> > > >I still think that I either shouldn't have been able to emerge QT or > >that "emerge system" should provide the same base for {,~}ppc-macos, > >since portage doesn't pull these packages because they are never > >depended on. > > If we only had ~ppc-macos, this would have never happened, nor would the > bug on mediawiki.
If you had accurate QT deps, this would never have happened either. If everyone used testing, that dep problem would never have been found. That isn't an improvement in QA. Can someone explain what is to be gained from this that cannot be achieved with automated builds (e.g. to weed out the badly broken stable packages and check the deps of the ~ppc-macos packages); as well as a policy to relax the "30 day" rule? -f -- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos Hasan Khalil <gongloo@g.o>