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: Lina Pezzella <J4rg0n@g.o>
Subject: Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 23:25:10 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Sep 4, 2005, at 10:01 PM, Finn Thain wrote:

>> 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.

I don't think you understand the difference between arch and ~arch,  
nor the use of package.mask. QT is marked ~arch for several reasons  
1) it compiles and works on multiple unstable systems, 2) it has not  
been tested against a stable environment and has not been bug-free  
for 30 days, thus it cannot be "arch". If you wish to try to use a  
~arch package on an arch system, that's fine. Just don't yell when it  
breaks.

>
>
>> 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.

Actually, they're not different. The packages are exactly the same.  
"arch" designates that the package has been sufficiently tested and  
bug-free for long enough to be considered "stable".

> 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.

Then in my understanding of proper QA, 10.3.9 should not be "stable"  
either. Seriously though, we have a lot more bugs. I am not  
comfortable saying something is stable when it is clearly buggy.

>>> 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.

Sure, an automated system is a great idea. The problem is that it  
requires a lot of work to build one. It is in the works for now, but  
it's not here yet, so until then we have to deal with what we've got.  
Once we have an automated system and our setup isn't as dynamic, we  
can easily add support for a stable configuration.

- --Lina Pezzella
Ebuild & Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for OS X

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFDG7qXNJ9STR9DbYERAv4uAJ9uMgXW9MNrUidztGeEgFUmk0YNJwCfe97I
oVh0UxOAIEBd1/QDneSsK9g=
=/+Uo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list


Replies:
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
-- Finn Thain
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
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
-- Finn Thain
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
-- Hasan Khalil
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
-- Finn Thain
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:
Re: on stable and unstable ppc-macos
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.