| 1 |
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Grobian wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> From a freshly reported bug: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Reproducible: Always |
| 6 |
> Steps to Reproduce: |
| 7 |
> 1. Install gentoo for OSX and not be perfectly comfortable you did it |
| 8 |
> right. |
| 9 |
> 2. Add ~ppc-macos to the keywords for the mediawiki-1.4.9.ebuild. |
| 10 |
> 3. ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~ppc-macos" emerge mediawiki |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Here is where I want the discussion to start. I myself would have done |
| 13 |
> it exact the same way, and I see it happen a lot. In fact, I even think |
| 14 |
> this is the way the Gentoo docs advocate the use of ~arch. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> What's wrong with it? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> In a recent discussion I found out this is, however, not the way some |
| 19 |
> other people see the use of ~arch. Instead they assume your whole |
| 20 |
> system is ~arch. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Like gentoo was running a "testing" branch? As in, you aren't allowed to |
| 23 |
keyword an ebuild ~ unless it works with all the other ~ packages? Doesn't |
| 24 |
seem realistic. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> This very bug reported might be fixed if the whole system would be |
| 27 |
> ~ppc-macos, however, the user doesn't want that. Instead, the user |
| 28 |
> wants to use an unstable package, to have a very isolated case, where an |
| 29 |
> unstable package lives as a stable one. As far as I know, this is the |
| 30 |
> whole thing on Portage. It allows you to do this, and it enables you to |
| 31 |
> do this, and it even facilitates you to do this more automated, for |
| 32 |
> instance via package.keywords. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I hope you are right about that... |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> My opinion here is that there is something wrong if portage isn't able |
| 37 |
> to tell what it needs to run a package in ~ppc-macos. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Yeah. FWIW, I think that if a package is marked ~keyword, that should mean |
| 40 |
that the deps are sane. i.e. if ~ mediawiki needs ~ webapp-config, then |
| 41 |
the deps should say so. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> Maybe this is not easily fixable, and should we do some extra hacks to |
| 44 |
> make the two worlds play nice again. However, I don't think having a |
| 45 |
> fully ~arch system is equal to a user that runs a stable system and |
| 46 |
> wants to grab one package from the unstable branch. I consider the |
| 47 |
> first case to be 'progressive' (not in the ppc-macos sense) or 'bleeding |
| 48 |
> edge' while the latter case is more realistic and what happens in real |
| 49 |
> life: 'controlled risk'. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> I like to straighten out this issue, so everyone knows what should be |
| 52 |
> done or not be done. I just assumed the only vision I knew was what |
| 53 |
> everyone has in mind, and this appears not to be like this. I think |
| 54 |
> it's directly related to QA and I feel my actions largely depend on it. |
| 55 |
> So, until I know what I'm doing is right or wrong, I won't do anything. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
>From what I've read on this list over the past few weeks, it seems to be a |
| 58 |
damage control problem (not really a portage limitation) in that a whole |
| 59 |
bunch of stuff is keyworded wrong. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-f |
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives