| 1 |
Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broken" in the first paragraph nor |
| 5 |
>>> how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if |
| 6 |
>>> a repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing the users' |
| 7 |
>>> ride, I'm personally all for it. |
| 8 |
>> By "broken" I mean unported. In other words, directly depending on |
| 9 |
>> either virtual/x11 or x11-base/xorg-x11. The check will help discover |
| 10 |
>> unmaintained packages by not allowing people to do flyby fixes without |
| 11 |
>> also fixing this. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> What can I do to speed up the process of getting this into a 2.1 |
| 14 |
>> release? Keep in mind my python is beyond bad. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Perhaps not so easy. What specific states need to be checked for to regard a |
| 17 |
> package as broken? Depending on "x11-base/xorg-x11" is one. Depending on |
| 18 |
> "virtual/x11" seems to be valid looking at the porting guide though. Would |
| 19 |
> considering a package broken if it contains "virtual/x11" where the token |
| 20 |
> immediately preceding the surrounding brackets is not "||" be correct? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> DEPEND="x11-base/xorg-x11" # wrong |
| 23 |
> DEPEND="virtual/x11" # wrong |
| 24 |
> DEPEND="|| ( x11? ( virtual/x11 ) )" # wrong |
| 25 |
> DEPEND="|| ( misc/atoms virtual/x11 )" # right |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> There's a small possibility that broken packages will be missed by this, but |
| 28 |
> is there any chance that valid packages will be incorrectly flagged? If this |
| 29 |
> gets a go-ahead, it'll be easy enough to get in for the next release (which |
| 30 |
> is likely this coming Saturday). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It sounds right. There should be no valid instance of virtual/x11 that |
| 33 |
is not within an || dep. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Donnie |
Archives