| 1 |
On Sep 3, 2005, at 04:14, Grobian wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> My opinion here is that there is something wrong if portage isn't |
| 4 |
> able to tell what it needs to run a package in ~ppc-macos. Maybe |
| 5 |
> this is not easily fixable, and should we do some extra hacks to |
| 6 |
> make the two worlds play nice again. However, I don't think having |
| 7 |
> a fully ~arch system is equal to a user that runs a stable system |
| 8 |
> and wants to grab one package from the unstable branch. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
We feel that you are absolutely correct here, and that a fundamental |
| 11 |
capability of portage is to be able to tell _exactly_ what is |
| 12 |
necessary in order to build/install/use a package. Unfortunately, |
| 13 |
portage makes several assumptions in this process, and not all of |
| 14 |
these assumptions are valid for the ppc-macos/~ppc-macos mixed case. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As a solution, we feel as though it's high time that the ppc-macos |
| 17 |
(stable) keyword is dropped entirely, in favor of ~ppc-macos |
| 18 |
(testing), tree-wide. This would obviously solve the problem detailed |
| 19 |
by Fabian above. There are several reasons that we feel this is a |
| 20 |
good idea, and long overdue: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
* We don't have the manpower to fix, maintain or keep up with a |
| 23 |
stable branch. |
| 24 |
* The project is just too young, with too many fundamental (read: |
| 25 |
system packages) aspects changing too frequently to keep up with a |
| 26 |
stable branch without constantly breaking the 30-days-without-bugs- |
| 27 |
before-stable 'rule'. |
| 28 |
* Even the 'stable' branch frequently breaks (read: compile-time or |
| 29 |
run-time errors in various packages), currently. |
| 30 |
* Did we mention that we don't have enough manpower to fix, |
| 31 |
maintain or keep up with a stable branch? |
| 32 |
* We don't have a large enough user-base to justify bumping |
| 33 |
packages from testing to stable by just waiting for the 30-days- |
| 34 |
without-bugs-before-stable timeout to expire (this point was |
| 35 |
previously discussed on this mailing list). |
| 36 |
* Oh yeah, the manpower thing. |
| 37 |
* As it is, we currently (or at the very least have, in the past, |
| 38 |
and will, in the future) needlessly hold up older versions of various |
| 39 |
packages from being removed from the portage tree because there is no |
| 40 |
later version that has been marked ppc-macos (stable). |
| 41 |
* No, really, we just don't have the manpower to fix, maintain or |
| 42 |
keep up with a stable branch. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
In summary, we wish to extend a notion[1] that was previously |
| 45 |
mentioned on this list, and put forth that we should immediately |
| 46 |
replace all instances of the ppc-macos (stable) keyword in KEYWORDS |
| 47 |
with ~ppc-macos (testing). |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
So what's the verdict? |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
- Hasan && Lina |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
[1] That is, to hold off bumping packages from testing to stable. See |
| 54 |
"On keywording ppc-macos", a thread started by Fabian Groffen on this |
| 55 |
list. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.macosx/396 |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Hasan Khalil && Lina Pezzella |
| 60 |
eBuild and Porting Co-Leads |
| 61 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X |
Archives