Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Stewart <bdlists@×××××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild behaviour?
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 17:56:58
1 Hello, all;
3 I was wondering if there exists any formal policy on the
4 addition/removal (emphasis on the latter) of ebuilds?
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.
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.
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?
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. :/
29 Thoughts? Opinions?
31 --
35 --
36 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild behaviour? Michael Cummings <mcummings@g.o>