Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-osx
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-osx: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-osx@g.o
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...>
Subject: Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 14:00:58 +1000 (EST)
On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Lina Pezzella wrote:

> >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. The reason "emerge system" pulls in different 
> packages dependent on whether you are running ~ppc-macos or ppc-macos is 
> that baselayout-darwin and coreutils-darwin are not yet ready for 
> stable. What I mean by this is that they haven't been sufficiently 
> tested and may still change significantly.

Are there known bugs with the ~ppc-macos baselayout?

> The crux of the issue here is that we are only really pretending to have 
> stable support. We all agree that there are "stable" packages that don't 
> work. This is not "stable", and imho we shouldn't pretend to have stable 
> support when we really don't. Additionally, I think QA would improve 
> drastically if all developers could work on the same system setup and 
> expect users to have the same system setup.

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.

> Once we have the manpower and a less dynamic setup (right now our 
> profiles change frequently, we are toying with the prefixed-install 
> idea, baselayout and coreutils are changing) we definitely should 
> support stable. Until then I think it is just a misnomer that should be 
> dropped.

Well, moving stable packages to testing also creates a misnomer.

> >
> >I still think that I either shouldn't have been able to emerge QT or 
> >that "emerge system" should provide the same base for {,~}ppc-macos, 
> >since portage doesn't pull these packages because they are never 
> >depended on.
> 
> If we only had ~ppc-macos, this would have never happened, nor would the 
> bug on mediawiki.

If you had accurate QT deps, this would never have happened either. If 
everyone used testing, that dep problem would never have been found. That 
isn't an improvement in QA.

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?

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


Replies:
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
-- Hasan Khalil
References:
on stable and unstable ppc-macos
-- Grobian
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
-- Nick Dimiduk
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
-- Finn Thain
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
-- Grobian
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
-- Lina Pezzella
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-osx: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
Next by thread:
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
Previous by date:
Arch Testing Policy and Procedures
Next by date:
Re: Arch Testing Policy and Procedures


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-osx mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.