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
> 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
> 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.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list