1 |
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Lina Pezzella wrote: |
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. The reason "emerge system" pulls in different |
16 |
> packages dependent on whether you are running ~ppc-macos or ppc-macos is |
17 |
> that baselayout-darwin and coreutils-darwin are not yet ready for |
18 |
> stable. What I mean by this is that they haven't been sufficiently |
19 |
> tested and may still change significantly. |
20 |
|
21 |
Are there known bugs with the ~ppc-macos baselayout? |
22 |
|
23 |
> The crux of the issue here is that we are only really pretending to have |
24 |
> stable support. We all agree that there are "stable" packages that don't |
25 |
> work. This is not "stable", and imho we shouldn't pretend to have stable |
26 |
> support when we really don't. Additionally, I think QA would improve |
27 |
> drastically if all developers could work on the same system setup and |
28 |
> expect users to have the same system setup. |
29 |
|
30 |
Yes, and if devs used stable, that would improve QA also. If the dev that |
31 |
keyworded qt was using stable, s/he would have found that the qt deps were |
32 |
wrong because they don't include the baselayout requirement. |
33 |
|
34 |
> Once we have the manpower and a less dynamic setup (right now our |
35 |
> profiles change frequently, we are toying with the prefixed-install |
36 |
> idea, baselayout and coreutils are changing) we definitely should |
37 |
> support stable. Until then I think it is just a misnomer that should be |
38 |
> dropped. |
39 |
|
40 |
Well, moving stable packages to testing also creates a misnomer. |
41 |
|
42 |
> > |
43 |
> >I still think that I either shouldn't have been able to emerge QT or |
44 |
> >that "emerge system" should provide the same base for {,~}ppc-macos, |
45 |
> >since portage doesn't pull these packages because they are never |
46 |
> >depended on. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> If we only had ~ppc-macos, this would have never happened, nor would the |
49 |
> bug on mediawiki. |
50 |
|
51 |
If you had accurate QT deps, this would never have happened either. If |
52 |
everyone used testing, that dep problem would never have been found. That |
53 |
isn't an improvement in QA. |
54 |
|
55 |
Can someone explain what is to be gained from this that cannot be achieved |
56 |
with automated builds (e.g. to weed out the badly broken stable packages |
57 |
and check the deps of the ~ppc-macos packages); as well as a policy to |
58 |
relax the "30 day" rule? |
59 |
|
60 |
-f |
61 |
-- |
62 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |