Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o>
To: Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:56:55
Message-Id: CAB9SyzR_CGw+TbJorz3yKL8y8rcQwYByY6yTB-visfRL-a0mbw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask by Alexis Ballier
1 On 21 April 2013 22:59, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
2
3 > On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:53:28 +0800
4 > Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote:
5 >
6 > > On 19 April 2013 21:30, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
7 > >
8 > > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
9 > > > "Ben de Groot (yngwin)" <yngwin@g.o> wrote:
10 > > >
11 > > > > Index: package.mask
12 > > > > ===================================================================
13 > > > > RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask,v
14 > > > > retrieving revision 1.14667
15 > > > > retrieving revision 1.14668
16 > > > > diff -u -r1.14667 -r1.14668
17 > > > > --- package.mask 19 Apr 2013 06:20:50 -0000 1.14667
18 > > > > +++ package.mask 19 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0000 1.14668
19 > > > [...]
20 > > > > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@
21 > > > > # Non-maintainer ebuild with experimental multilib features
22 > > > > # masked for further testing
23 > > > > =media-libs/freetype-2.4.11-r2
24 > > > > +=media-libs/fontconfig-2.10.2-r1
25 > > > >
26 > > >
27 > > > Is there any real reason behind this mask I may have missed ?
28 > >
29 > >
30 > > This ebuild, with multilib features, was committed without my consent,
31 > > while I am the de facto maintainer of freetype and fontconfig (other
32 > > devs in fonts herd are inactive). I don't want to deal with bug
33 > > reports because of this.
34 >
35 > Fair enough, but there is a lack of coordination there (who started the
36 > mess is irrelevant), leaving as only choices: unmask ft/fc or mask a
37 > good part of the multilib x11 stuff. The current situation is broken.
38 >
39
40 I agree it is broken. I'm trying to do my part for the packages I maintain.
41 In my opinion all the recent multilib stuff should be masked, but I don't
42 maintain those other (x11) packages. So you may want to handle it in
43 a different way.
44
45
46 > I suppose you talked with Michal about this and couldn't reach an
47 > agreement, like him joining the fonts herd, or at least the mail alias
48 > to monitor ft/fc bugs.
49 >
50 > If you want I can join the fonts herd also, I already have a foot in
51 > there for some small packages used within texlive anyway.
52 >
53
54 We could certainly use a hand in fonts herd. Most members have
55 left or are on extended non-active status. It's just lu_zero (and I am
56 not sure how active he is wrt fonts packages, but it certainly doesn't
57 cover freetype and fontconfig) and me.
58
59 > And I'd rather see this developed in an overlay instead, as I have
60 > > said before. We also need more consensus on this multilib approach
61 > > before I am happy to support this.
62 >
63 > I believe we reached consensus last time. Also, I believe we are at the
64 > step "it is mature enough to give it a wide ~arch testing"; otherwise
65 > we may just repeat multilib-portage history and have it in an overlay
66 > for several years to never give it wide adoption in the end.
67 >
68
69 Maybe I missed something, but I haven't seen anything like that.
70 Can you point me to those discussions?
71
72 --
73 Cheers,
74
75 Ben | yngwin
76 Gentoo developer
77 Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

Replies