On Sep 4, 2005, at 24:00, Finn Thain wrote:

> Are there known bugs with the ~ppc-macos baselayout?

Yes and no. There are design issues still in the works with it. I  
think that the general consensus is that it's definitely _not_ ready  
for prime-time, yet.

> Yes, and if devs used stable, that would improve QA also. If the  
> dev that
> keyworded qt was using stable, s/he would have found that the qt  
> deps were
> wrong because they don't include the baselayout requirement.

Uh, no? The x11-libs/qt deps are indeed correct. Please do your  
homework before posting to this list; you should read up on Gentoo  
policy about DEPENDS and packages that are in 'system', such as  
baselayout.

Should Gentoo policy change, I would have absolutely no problem (and  
would actually encourage) adding 'virtual/baselayout' to DEPENDS  
where necessary. Brian Harring has also discussed this on gentoo-dev,  
in relation to 'BDEPENDS'.

> Well, moving stable packages to testing also creates a misnomer.

Again, do your homework. Stable packages are a subset of testing  
packages for any given arch. By specifying '~arch' in your KEYWORDS  
(in /etc/make.conf), you are actually implicitly specifying 'arch'.

> Can someone explain what is to be gained from this that cannot be  
> achieved
> with automated builds (e.g. to weed out the badly broken stable  
> packages
> and check the deps of the ~ppc-macos packages); as well as a policy to
> relax the "30 day" rule?

What automated builds? AFAIK, we don't have an automated build  
system, and one won't exist for a Real Long Time(tm). Once it does,  
I'm all for keeping a stable branch. Until then, I find that keeping  
a stable branch is way more work than we can keep up with, for all  
the reasons cited in my previous message(s) to this list.

I don't mean to sound rude, here; I apologize in advance if I do.  
Please don't take any of this personally.

--

Hasan Khalil
eBuild and Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X