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
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
> with automated builds (e.g. to weed out the badly broken stable
> 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.
eBuild and Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X