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: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:55:15
Message-Id: 4319D55D.2080904@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] on stable and unstable ppc-macos by Hasan Khalil
1 I will shut up and wait. Sorry.
2
3 Hasan Khalil wrote:
4 >
5 > On Sep 3, 2005, at 04:14, Grobian wrote:
6 >
7 >> My opinion here is that there is something wrong if portage isn't able
8 >> to tell what it needs to run a package in ~ppc-macos. Maybe this is
9 >> not easily fixable, and should we do some extra hacks to make the two
10 >> worlds play nice again. However, I don't think having a fully ~arch
11 >> system is equal to a user that runs a stable system and wants to grab
12 >> one package from the unstable branch.
13 >
14 > We feel that you are absolutely correct here, and that a fundamental
15 > capability of portage is to be able to tell _exactly_ what is necessary
16 > in order to build/install/use a package. Unfortunately, portage makes
17 > several assumptions in this process, and not all of these assumptions
18 > are valid for the ppc-macos/~ppc-macos mixed case.
19 >
20 > As a solution, we feel as though it's high time that the ppc-macos
21 > (stable) keyword is dropped entirely, in favor of ~ppc-macos (testing),
22 > tree-wide. This would obviously solve the problem detailed by Fabian
23 > above. There are several reasons that we feel this is a good idea, and
24 > long overdue:
25 >
26 > * We don't have the manpower to fix, maintain or keep up with a stable
27 > branch.
28 > * The project is just too young, with too many fundamental (read:
29 > system packages) aspects changing too frequently to keep up with a
30 > stable branch without constantly breaking the
31 > 30-days-without-bugs-before-stable 'rule'.
32 > * Even the 'stable' branch frequently breaks (read: compile-time or
33 > run-time errors in various packages), currently.
34 > * Did we mention that we don't have enough manpower to fix, maintain or
35 > keep up with a stable branch?
36 > * We don't have a large enough user-base to justify bumping packages
37 > from testing to stable by just waiting for the
38 > 30-days-without-bugs-before-stable timeout to expire (this point was
39 > previously discussed on this mailing list).
40 > * Oh yeah, the manpower thing.
41 > * As it is, we currently (or at the very least have, in the past, and
42 > will, in the future) needlessly hold up older versions of various
43 > packages from being removed from the portage tree because there is no
44 > later version that has been marked ppc-macos (stable).
45 > * No, really, we just don't have the manpower to fix, maintain or keep
46 > up with a stable branch.
47 >
48 > In summary, we wish to extend a notion[1] that was previously mentioned
49 > on this list, and put forth that we should immediately replace all
50 > instances of the ppc-macos (stable) keyword in KEYWORDS with ~ppc-macos
51 > (testing).
52 >
53 > So what's the verdict?
54 >
55 > - Hasan && Lina
56 >
57 > [1] That is, to hold off bumping packages from testing to stable. See
58 > "On keywording ppc-macos", a thread started by Fabian Groffen on this
59 > list. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.macosx/396
60 >
61 > --
62 >
63 > Hasan Khalil && Lina Pezzella
64 > eBuild and Porting Co-Leads
65 > Gentoo for Mac OS X
66 >
67
68 --
69 Fabian Groffen
70 Gentoo for Mac OS X
71 --
72 gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list