On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Hasan Khalil wrote:
> 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.
If that is the case, shouldn't qt be hard masked? If you move everything
from arch to ~arch, you will be doing a lot more of that.
> 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'.
This is nonsense. There are some packages that are keyworded arch for a
reason. i.e. they are different than those keyworded ~arch. If you are
saying that there is no difference, maybe you should do some homework. I
really don't think the semantic problems here are worth pursuing. If there
is a problem with calling certain ebuilds "stable", that is because there
are bugs. So what? At least once a month I find a new bug in 10.3.9, which
I installed when it was released.
> >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.
And I explained how to avoid pressure to "keep up", in my previous
messages. As yet, no one has responded the questions and concerns raised
In as much as you and Lina have explained the rationale for such a
retrograde step, that rationale permits better alternatives. Either that
is because you haven't published your rationale completely, or it is
because your proposal is inferior.
I understand your predicament, I'm just trying to avoid what I see is an
over-rereaction to it. Hence the debate.
> I don't mean to sound rude, here; I apologize in advance if I do. Please
> don't take any of this personally.
No offence taken.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list