On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Grobian wrote:

> From a freshly reported bug:
> 
> Reproducible: Always
> Steps to Reproduce:
> 1. Install gentoo for OSX and not be perfectly comfortable you did it 
>    right.
> 2. Add ~ppc-macos to the keywords for the mediawiki-1.4.9.ebuild.
> 3. ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~ppc-macos" emerge mediawiki
> 
> Here is where I want the discussion to start.  I myself would have done 
> it exact the same way, and I see it happen a lot.  In fact, I even think 
> this is the way the Gentoo docs advocate the use of ~arch.
> 
> What's wrong with it?
> 
> In a recent discussion I found out this is, however, not the way some 
> other people see the use of ~arch.  Instead they assume your whole 
> system is ~arch.

Like gentoo was running a "testing" branch? As in, you aren't allowed to 
keyword an ebuild ~ unless it works with all the other ~ packages? Doesn't 
seem realistic.

> This very bug reported might be fixed if the whole system would be
> ~ppc-macos, however, the user doesn't want that.  Instead, the user
> wants to use an unstable package, to have a very isolated case, where an 
> unstable package lives as a stable one.  As far as I know, this is the 
> whole thing on Portage.  It allows you to do this, and it enables you to 
> do this, and it even facilitates you to do this more automated, for 
> instance via package.keywords.

I hope you are right about that...

> My opinion here is that there is something wrong if portage isn't able 
> to tell what it needs to run a package in ~ppc-macos.

Yeah. FWIW, I think that if a package is marked ~keyword, that should mean 
that the deps are sane. i.e. if ~ mediawiki needs ~ webapp-config, then 
the deps should say so.

> Maybe this is not easily fixable, and should we do some extra hacks to 
> make the two worlds play nice again.  However, I don't think having a 
> fully ~arch system is equal to a user that runs a stable system and 
> wants to grab one package from the unstable branch.  I consider the 
> first case to be 'progressive' (not in the ppc-macos sense) or 'bleeding 
> edge' while the latter case is more realistic and what happens in real 
> life: 'controlled risk'.
>
> I like to straighten out this issue, so everyone knows what should be 
> done or not be done.  I just assumed the only vision I knew was what 
> everyone has in mind, and this appears not to be like this.  I think 
> it's directly related to QA and I feel my actions largely depend on it.
>  So, until I know what I'm doing is right or wrong, I won't do anything.

>From what I've read on this list over the past few weeks, it seems to be a 
damage control problem (not really a portage limitation) in that a whole 
bunch of stuff is keyworded wrong.

-f
-- 
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list