| 1 |
Hello, all; |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I was wondering if there exists any formal policy on the |
| 4 |
addition/removal (emphasis on the latter) of ebuilds? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Two examples that come immediately to mind in recent past are LICQ and |
| 7 |
Mozilla. In the case of LICQ, a 1.2.6 ebuild was committed which did not |
| 8 |
work (for whatever reason a copy of the 1.2.4-r2 ebuild failed to |
| 9 |
install the plugins correctly, rendering the GUI unusable), and at the |
| 10 |
same time - before any testing was done to 1.2.6 - the (stable, tested) |
| 11 |
1.2.4-r2 ebuild, and all prior to it, were removed from the tree. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
In the case of Mozilla, its ebuilds have remained behind the releases |
| 14 |
(alpha/beta/release candidate) for some time, remaining fixed at 1.3. In |
| 15 |
a previous rsync I noticed a 1.4b ebuild, but in a subsequent rsync that |
| 16 |
ebuild was removed from the tree. I was anxious to hack away at it and |
| 17 |
see if it would work and possibly be portable for the 1.4rc1 version. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So what is the policy on removing stable, tested ebuilds, and even for |
| 20 |
removing newer ebuilds which haven't had a chance to be tested? In the |
| 21 |
case of LICQ, shouldn't that be handled by ~arch? In the case of |
| 22 |
Mozilla, package.mask until the ebuild installed, and ~arch afterwards |
| 23 |
for testing? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Portage is technologically fantastic, but I'm afraid that if the means |
| 26 |
aren't used properly, we may find ourselves with a frustrated user (and |
| 27 |
developer) base. :/ |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thoughts? Opinions? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
http://www.snerk.org/ |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives