1 |
Hi, |
2 |
|
3 |
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Owen Stampflee wrote: |
4 |
|
5 |
> Well, as I have said in IRC, I believe that creating a new rsync tree |
6 |
> would fix things for the moment. We could always have a testing tree for |
7 |
> those who want to use err test, err blow up their systems with the |
8 |
> latest packages. |
9 |
|
10 |
> Debian does it this way, keeping all the different archs seperate. With |
11 |
> a binary packaging method it has to be done this way so why isnt this |
12 |
> done when the packages are in source form? This would solve little |
13 |
> problems such as xforms and we could also fix other little things which |
14 |
> say they require nasm but don't really need it. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> In the future it would be great if portage could do this automagically. |
17 |
> It could look at the arch and then pull from the correct tree. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Owen |
20 |
|
21 |
Gentoo is not Debian :-) |
22 |
|
23 |
When GentooPPC was born it had it's own CVS and rsync, because of this, |
24 |
there was a lot of QA (which seems to be a major factor now): GentooPPC |
25 |
CVS (and rsync) was about a week 'behind' on x86 CVS. There were a few |
26 |
major problems: |
27 |
|
28 |
1) Ebuilds could be broken on both PPC and x86, when x86 devs introduced |
29 |
a rewrite/cleanup, it had to be manually imported on PPC. Most of the time |
30 |
ppc devs don't know when a bugfix is introduced to x86 portage, so it |
31 |
happened often that ppc users reported a bug already fixed on x86. |
32 |
|
33 |
2) If an ebuild is fixed on PPC, it has to be introduced to x86 at the |
34 |
same time. Introducing stuff to x86 shouldn't happen without testing on |
35 |
x86, if the x86 part stopped working, it needs to get |
36 |
fixed, and the fixed x86 ebuild may stop working on ppc ... |
37 |
Combined with another arch merging its stuff at the same time, makes life |
38 |
very interesting: ppc stuff is fixed against x86 ebuilds, if for example |
39 |
sparc introduced a fix to x86, the ppc fix is rendered invalid, and has to |
40 |
be completely rewritten to accomodate the sparc fix. Of course this caused |
41 |
ppc patches to be added to x86 often without testing. |
42 |
|
43 |
The merge into x86 could introduce a few problems: a newer |
44 |
release may have been introduced on x86 or the x86 ebuild may have had |
45 |
some other things fixed, the newer ebuilds have to be merged into PPC, |
46 |
fixed and tested again and again, until the ebuild on ALL platforms |
47 |
works. Most ppc guys don't have a x86 and a sparc at home to test. (I |
48 |
have only an x86 which is running Gentoo) |
49 |
|
50 |
3) While an ebuild might look the same, it may be different on two |
51 |
platforms. Finding out which one is newer is easy to do, making sure the |
52 |
newest ebuild works on both platforms requires testing. |
53 |
|
54 |
4) Importing stuff from x86 into PPC portage (syncing the two) is almost |
55 |
impossible to do with CVS (It will still remain more or less impossible |
56 |
when we start using bitkeeper for example) |
57 |
|
58 |
5) Fixes introduced by the PPC platform in X86 may be 'forgotten' in newer |
59 |
releases on x86. No x86 dev is able to test the ppc fix, so ppc fixes |
60 |
might seem unnecessary... |
61 |
|
62 |
6) x86 devs tend to shit ebuilds directly into x86 portage |
63 |
|
64 |
7) Every day new ebuild features get added to portage: new USE |
65 |
vars, old USE vars get removed, new SLOT var, new LICENCE var, ebuild |
66 |
indentation rules... I have no problem with introducing and removing |
67 |
features, or even rewriting the whole portage stuff, but it is almost |
68 |
impossible to merge stuff between trees when these things happen. That's |
69 |
why I want to keep a single tree containing all. This way ppc fixes get fo |
70 |
|
71 |
Keeping a separate repository for all archs might seem a good idea, it |
72 |
isn't because this will cause gentoo to fall apart, and |
73 |
multiplies all work by 5 and might even render the work unusable after |
74 |
all. |
75 |
|
76 |
Debian may be able to use separate trees, but there are a lot more devs |
77 |
working on Debian and I chose Gentoo because Debian would rather fix old |
78 |
packages than introduce new ones. I want to be on the edge, and compile |
79 |
everything from source, but this doesn't mean Gentoo cannot be as stable |
80 |
like debian-stable. |
81 |
|
82 |
With Gentoo stability is achieved by emerging a basic system, and |
83 |
emerging newer ebuild releases when critical bugs are detected in the |
84 |
software merged by the ebuild (this can be done using a profile, but the |
85 |
profile has to be maintained). Gentoo needs to do QA by <<<testing>>> |
86 |
more before releasing. No more: |
87 |
|
88 |
voila, it's in portage, please try it out |
89 |
|
90 |
But: |
91 |
|
92 |
voila, it's in portage, unmask it (merge with -unstable or whatever) and |
93 |
it will be unmasked when it's tested by a few people. |
94 |
|
95 |
I'm sure we will see a Gentoo-stable solution soon. |
96 |
But please bear in mind that Gentoo is an all-in-one solution and I |
97 |
think it should stay that way. A linux distro can be stable and on the |
98 |
edge at the same time, it's up to the user to choose what ebuilds he |
99 |
likes, just like debian, but with a single repository for all archs, this |
100 |
allows people to be on the edge on all platforms and allows devs to |
101 |
concentrate on testing instead of merging untested. This doesn't mean |
102 |
there can't be a Gentoo-stable (profile or whatever) on all archs. |
103 |
|
104 |
> problems such as xforms and we could also fix other little things which |
105 |
> say they require nasm but don't really need it. |
106 |
|
107 |
Due to some techical failure on one of my critical boxes, I have been away |
108 |
a while, so I'm not up to speed with what happened with xforms and other |
109 |
related discussions. |
110 |
|
111 |
I guess that ebuilds that require nasm but don't really need it can have |
112 |
the nasm dependency removed. (or it should be merged with nasm use flag |
113 |
removed, if a nasm flag exists) |
114 |
|
115 |
It reminds me of the vim problem that had X as a dependency, mergin vim |
116 |
meant merging X. It should be split up into two ebuilds or you should be |
117 |
able to disable the X compilation dependency by removing the X useflag. |
118 |
|
119 |
If the ebuild is really broken, it can be masked out in the profile (just |
120 |
like lilo for example, which has no use on ppc), until some ppc dev |
121 |
rewrites the ebuild or patched it. |
122 |
|
123 |
Pieter |
124 |
|
125 |
-- |
126 |
Pieter Van den Abeele |
127 |
pvdabeel@××××××.be - pvdabeel@g.o |
128 |
|
129 |
> -- |
130 |
> Owen Stampflee - owen@××××××××××.org |
131 |
> http://penguinppc.org/~owen |
132 |
> |
133 |
> _______________________________________________ |
134 |
> gentooppc-dev mailing list |
135 |
> gentooppc-dev@g.o |
136 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentooppc-dev |
137 |
> |