| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Miguel Filipe wrote: |
| 4 |
> I've been trying to emerge gcc 4.0.2-r2, messing with |
| 5 |
> /etc/portage/package.unmask & /etc/portage/package.keywords |
| 6 |
> without success.. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> the portage man page says that if a package has -* is know to be broken |
| 9 |
> on all arches otherwise mentioned. |
| 10 |
> So is 4.0.1, 4.0.0, 4.1-snapshot.. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I would expect it to be at least marked unstable "~amd64 .." |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I hope you really know what you are doing (or trying to do). gcc-4.0 isn't |
| 15 |
broken, but it is hard-masked because there are *major* changes, meaning you |
| 16 |
should rebuild your whole system with it once you upgraded. That's why it is not |
| 17 |
yet ~amd64 and we want to give it a long testing period. Another issue is that |
| 18 |
gcc-4.0 is even stricter than 3.4, meaning lots of packages won't build anymore. |
| 19 |
That's why we marked it -*, because we don't want to disappoint normal users who |
| 20 |
aren't familiar with writing patches. And those who are, are clever enough to |
| 21 |
unmask a hard masked package, it's not that hard after all. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> gentoo seems to have major problems in keeping up with the public |
| 24 |
> releases.. its starting to look like debian stable.... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Is this a 'i want to help'? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> also.. I don't see the point in having 3 types of tags: stable, |
| 29 |
> unstable, broken.. maybe the same point of (stable, testing, unstable.. |
| 30 |
> ala debian) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
You're mixing up quite unrelated things. -* is generally used for packages that |
| 33 |
are only available for one or two arch (typical example: binary packages). When |
| 34 |
it means 'broken', then it is only in the tree because it makes it easier for |
| 35 |
devs to share ebuilds which they (and of course the 'advanced' users) can test. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> Nevermind, basically, I'm using gentoo since 1.0rc6 and starting to be |
| 38 |
> disapointed by the slowness of having fresh software available.. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
If you feel more adventurous, use package.(unmask|keywords). It's a wonderful |
| 41 |
tool to let the user decide himself what is stable enough for him. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> gnome 2.12 came out 7 of september, maybe when gnome 2.14 is out I can |
| 44 |
> find it keyworded "amd64".. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Again, package.keywords if you agree. Since 1.0rc6, Gentoo has changed a lot. |
| 47 |
We've got a huge user base, and we really don't feel like getting the same bug |
| 48 |
reported 10 times just because we marked some untested piece of software stable. |
| 49 |
It won't make most users very happy either, especially those who want a system |
| 50 |
that 'just works'. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> In conclusion, package mantainance needs a new organizational way to scale.. |
| 53 |
> Or should I simply move to ~amd64, just like any debian user sets its |
| 54 |
> system to testing without thinking twice, just after the install. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Moving to ~amd64 could be the right thing for you. But if you're running ~amd64 |
| 57 |
and get tons of bugs, don't bitch. Personally, I think everybody who runs ~amd64 |
| 58 |
should be filing bugs whenever he hits one. If you don't want to do that, keep |
| 59 |
your system stable. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Regards, |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
Simon Stelling |
| 65 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead |
| 66 |
blubb@g.o |
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives