| 1 |
On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 17:29, marciot wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Today I emerged "tightvnc" and it installed "tightvnc-1.2.3-r2.ebuild" |
| 5 |
> by default. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I turns out this version of the "vncserver" is broken and leads to a |
| 8 |
> garbled image on the PPC (I gather from the web that it has something |
| 9 |
> to do with endian-ness). I then emerged "tightvnc-1.2.6.ebuild" and it |
| 10 |
> solved the problem. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I actually use 1.2.3-r2 at home with no problems. I will keyword the |
| 14 |
new one. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> PS: I've noticed a lot of packages are *not* marked with a ppc keyword |
| 19 |
> and emerge often fails to find them. This is frustrating. Is there a |
| 20 |
> reason why packages aren't marked "ppc" to begin with and the keywords |
| 21 |
> removed only if it turns out to be broken? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Packages without ppc or -ppc in keywords are untested. Pacakges with |
| 26 |
-ppc in keywords means its tested and not working (masked). You can |
| 27 |
help by continuing to test ebuilds and reporting either on this list of |
| 28 |
the gentooppc-dev@g.o list. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The good reason that they are not marked as ppc by default is becaue |
| 31 |
they need to be tested before they are given the ok to go. From past |
| 32 |
experience if this is not done you get a pretty crappy user experience |
| 33 |
as 35% or more of everything you try and install doesn't work and we |
| 34 |
spend all our time chasing down bugs for pkgs that should have never |
| 35 |
been able to install on ppc in the first place :/ This way may be a bit |
| 36 |
slower but ensures you have a working box :) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Thanks :) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Gerk |
Archives