On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Lina Pezzella wrote (in reply to Grobian):

> >The problem is happening for real at 
> >http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87758
> >
> >there baselayout is necessary.  However, baselayout is only pulled in 
> >the initial "emerge system" if you use ACCEPT_KEYWORD="~ppc-macos". 
> >Hence, I can't compile, because QTDIR is not set for me, while someone 
> >having a complete ~ppc-macos system can.  Portage won't pull the 
> >dependency of baselayout for a reason I think, but the particular 
> >problem sheds this light on the whole problem of how to test what on 
> >which system.
> 
> This is basically the basis of Hasan and my proposal to drop stable 
> support for ppc-macos.

I think that if the amd team's methodology [1] had been employed, this 
problem would be less important. That is, "...chroots for core packages 
going from package.masked to testing..." Had the core packages been 
package.masked, qt would not have been keyworded ~ppc-macos.

(One might take a broad definition of "core packages" to mean "a package 
that commonly serves as an implicit dep".)

In general, it would then be safer for a stable end-user to do the 
occasional emerge from ~ppc-macos (an idea I like a lot), and it would 
mean that devs did not have to uniformly adopt ~ppc-macos (which is is not 
great for QA), and it would mean one less reason to drop the ppc-macos 
keyword (I'm trying criticise that proposal constructively, as I realise 
that its motivation is important.)

-f

[1] http://groups.google.com.au/group/linux.gentoo.dev/msg/7d984fa7593f8e80?hl=en&

-- 
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list