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 
there-in.

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.

-f
-- 
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list