-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sep 4, 2005, at 10:01 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
>> Uh, no? The x11-libs/qt deps are indeed correct. Please do your
>> before posting to this list; you should read up on Gentoo policy
>> DEPENDS and packages that are in 'system', such as baselayout.
> If that is the case, shouldn't qt be hard masked? If you move
> 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
>> Should Gentoo policy change, I would have absolutely no problem (and
>> would actually encourage) adding 'virtual/baselayout' to DEPENDS
>> 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.
> really don't think the semantic problems here are worth pursuing.
> If there
> is a problem with calling certain ebuilds "stable", that is because
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
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)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list